On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 11:43:13PM +0100, Erin Shepherd wrote: > On 12/11/2024 14:57, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 14:10 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > We should really just move to storing 64-bit inode numbers internally > > on 32-bit machines. That would at least make statx() give you all 64 > > bits on 32-bit host. > > I think that would be ideal from the perspective of exposing it to > userspace. > It does leave the question of going back from inode to pidfd unsolved > though.I like the name_to_handle_at/open_by_handle_at approach because > it neatly solves both sides of the problem with APIs we already have and > understand > > > Hmm... I guess pid namespaces don't have a convenient 64-bit ID like > > mount namespaces do? In that case, stashing the pid from init_ns is > > probably the next best thing. > > Not that I could identify, no; so stashing the PID seemed like the most > pragmatic > approach. > > I'm not 100% sure it should be a documented property of the file > handle format; I somewhat think that everything after the PID inode > should be opaque to userspace and subject to change in the future (to > the point I considered xoring it with a magic constant to make it less > obvious to userspace/make it more obvious that its not to be relied > upon; but that to my knowledge is not something that the kernel has > done elsewhere). It's a handle, the internal details of its layout of it is supposed to be opaque to userspace. I wonder how well userspace deals with weirdly sized handles though... --D > - Erin > >
