linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [LSF/MM/BPF Topic] Lets have the Interface debate: configfd vs fsconfig
@ 2020-02-15 15:44 James Bottomley
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2020-02-15 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-fsdevel
  Cc: David Howells, Christian Brauner, Al Viro, Miklos Szeredi, lsf-pc

I've made the case in email that interfaces should always be as general
as they can be.  The counter argument is that interfaces which are too
general can be too powerful and hard for containment logic, like
seccomp, to properly constrain and predict the outcomes from the
various parameters.  So lets have that debate.  My argument is that
essentially we're good enough to handle the power wisely and we can
design interfaces, like configfd, to have easy introspection properties
for confinement tools, and I'm happy to debate this with anyone on the
less power makes easier interfaces side.

James


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2020-02-15 15:45 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-15 15:44 [LSF/MM/BPF Topic] Lets have the Interface debate: configfd vs fsconfig James Bottomley

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).