On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:23 PM Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:32:33PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 5:15 PM Christian Brauner > > <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 04:05:10PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote: > > > > Export receive_fd() so that some modules can use > > > > it to pass file descriptor between processes without > > > > missing any security stuffs. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > Yeah, as I said in the other mail I'd be comfortable with exposing just > > > this variant of the helper. > > > > Thanks, I got it now. > > > > > Maybe this should be a separate patch bundled together with Christoph's > > > patch to split parts of receive_fd() into a separate helper. > > > > Do we need to add the seccomp notifier into the separate helper? In > > our case, the file passed to the separate helper is from another > > process. > > Not sure what you mean. Christoph has proposed > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210325082209.1067987-2-hch@xxxxxx > I was just saying that if we think this patch is useful we might bundle > it together with the > EXPORT_SYMBOL(receive_fd) > part here, convert all drivers that currently open-code get_unused_fd() > + fd_install() to use receive_fd(), and make this a separate patchset. > Yes, I see. We can split the parts (get_unused_fd() + fd_install()) of receive_fd() into a separate helper and convert all drivers to use that. What I mean is that I also would like to use security_file_receive() in my modules. So I'm not sure if it's ok to add security_file_receive() into the separate helper. Or do I need to export security_file_receive() separately? Thanks, Yongji
