From: Christian Brauner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <email@example.com>, Al Viro <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: David Howells <email@example.com>,
firstname.lastname@example.org, Arnd Bergmann <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 08:54:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D41D33CA-ADFC-4E79-9C9C-79FE19E068CA@brauner.io> (raw)
On May 16, 2019 10:23:31 PM GMT+02:00, "Dmitry V. Levin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>[looks like linux-abi is a typo, Cc'ed linux-api instead]
>On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 05:50:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> [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
>> > > > all.
>> > >
>> > > I'm fine with 2--4, but I'm not convinced that cloexec-by-default
>> > > makes any sense. Could somebody give coherent arguments in
>> > > abandoning the existing conventions?
>> > So as I said in the commit message. From a userspace perspective
>> > more of an issue if one accidently leaks an fd to a task during
>> > 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.
>> > no argument there at all.
>> > But the idea of making fds cloexec by default is only targeted at
>> > that come from separate syscalls. fsopen(), open_tree_clone(), etc.
>> > all return fds independent of open() so it's really easy to have
>> > cloexec by default without regressing anyone and we also remove the
>> > 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
>> > able to specify that the returned fd should be made cloexec. The
>> > way around, cloexec by default, fcntl() to remove the cloexec bit
>> > saner imho.
>> Re separate flags - it is, in principle, a valid argument. OTOH, I'm
>> 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
>> would be a more useful approach... That kind of open-coded loops is
>> rare in userland and kernel-side code can do them much cheaper.
>> /* that exec is sensitive */
>> /* we don't want anything past stderr here */
>> close_range(3, ~0U);
>> on the userland side of thing. Comments?
>glibc people need a syscall to implement closefrom properly, see
I have a prototype for close_range().
I'll send it out after rc1.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-17 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-16 11:52 [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI [ver #2] David Howells
2019-05-16 11:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] uapi, fs: make all new mount api fds cloexec by default " David Howells
2019-05-16 11:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] uapi, fsopen: use square brackets around "fscontext" " David Howells
2019-05-16 11:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] uapi, x86: Fix the syscall numbering of the mount API syscalls " David Howells
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 11:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] uapi: Wire up the mount API syscalls on non-x86 arches " David Howells
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 14:56 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-05-16 14:59 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 16:22 ` [PATCH 0/4] uapi, vfs: Change the mount API UAPI " Al Viro
2019-05-16 16:31 ` Al Viro
2019-05-16 16:31 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 16:50 ` Al Viro
2019-05-16 17:01 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-16 20:23 ` Dmitry V. Levin
2019-05-17 6:54 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2019-05-17 7:01 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-17 7:13 ` David Howells
2019-05-17 7:25 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-05-17 7:27 ` Christian Brauner
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).