[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2]
[linux-abi cc'd]

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:52:04PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Linus, Al,
> > >
> > > Here are some patches that make changes to the mount API UAPI and two of
> > > them really need applying, before -rc1 - if they're going to be applied at
> > > all.
> >
> > I'm fine with 2--4, but I'm not convinced that cloexec-by-default crusade
> > makes any sense. Could somebody give coherent arguments in favour of
> > abandoning the existing conventions?
> So as I said in the commit message. From a userspace perspective it's
> more of an issue if one accidently leaks an fd to a task during exec.
> Also, most of the time one does not want to inherit an fd during an
> exec. It is a hazzle to always have to specify an extra flag.
> As Al pointed out to me open() semantics are not going anywhere. Sure,
> no argument there at all.
> But the idea of making fds cloexec by default is only targeted at fds
> that come from separate syscalls. fsopen(), open_tree_clone(), etc. they
> all return fds independent of open() so it's really easy to have them
> cloexec by default without regressing anyone and we also remove the need
> for a bunch of separate flags for each syscall to turn them into
> cloexec-fds. I mean, those for syscalls came with 4 separate flags to be
> able to specify that the returned fd should be made cloexec. The other
> way around, cloexec by default, fcntl() to remove the cloexec bit is way
> saner imho.

Re separate flags - it is, in principle, a valid argument. OTOH, I'm not
sure if they need to be separate - they all have the same value and
I don't see any reason for that to change...

Only tangentially related, but I wonder if something like close_range(from, to)
would be a more useful approach... That kind of open-coded loops is not
rare in userland and kernel-side code can do them much cheaper. Something
/* that exec is sensitive */
/* we don't want anything past stderr here */
close_range(3, ~0U);
on the userland side of thing. Comments?

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-16 18:52    [W:0.050 / U:30.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site