From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=bIL3=WZ=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C68BC41514
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 13:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5D98215EA
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 13:13:53 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=rasmusvillemoes.dk header.i=@rasmusvillemoes.dk header.b="VwOF8bMU"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B5D98215EA
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rasmusvillemoes.dk
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46K3332HjNzDrMG
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:13:51 +1000 (AEST)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=rasmusvillemoes.dk
 (client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::142; helo=mail-lf1-x142.google.com;
 envelope-from=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk; receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=rasmusvillemoes.dk
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key;
 unprotected) header.d=rasmusvillemoes.dk header.i=@rasmusvillemoes.dk
 header.b="VwOF8bMU"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail-lf1-x142.google.com (mail-lf1-x142.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::142])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46K3052T3CzDrFl
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:11:17 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x142.google.com with SMTP id j4so2468449lfh.8
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=rasmusvillemoes.dk; s=google;
 h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent
 :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=+pz1tJCvEpXqhYntc4a+eXdQw4YkeZzY/CUqzEnQfhI=;
 b=VwOF8bMUMlpcVPjnH7KLm7q9YPGAJyoJCaqTHg0eB7cJNs33HPtWse0a6S+38yOz8O
 NHVqczdRdynKQIjzWAF9I3YpK+wBqgWsLCV+xSrpqG8v5x5MeuksDGvoajweRjwbjZ5a
 38t56VL/f1C5Tbh/lNpCLIQcFzQtYKavA1iaY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date
 :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=+pz1tJCvEpXqhYntc4a+eXdQw4YkeZzY/CUqzEnQfhI=;
 b=eOcRe5aPyH6p5ev3DALrOBOGle6j3A4HDE+qTUnasaE6Zy3mx3PON5YJXF9GPG9+nz
 6kjx1pqRB9eUEfaBJZhWXINPmFyREtqXsHJziuq3D/TsiulDhs1tDfOz/KQQ7S7dw4e6
 3joXiuY8/6bCZhHBOMxrMLqLlbHmnwjzWDNJlPSoHJI7SUQicezo7xH3i8YiWj0xus+f
 DJIz1dhSIkrx2cWYgQkmxNZFN1Pgw4akuR0KVJICSQ/1pSswVbohdcN8ay3GO8FI0nYu
 I1z4NU4hpNOoGXfmGxPiNN4DMzFRk4IkBntgn8MGVqO1Alg+uFgryaOLNTe8VgcIWjNz
 6pyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUlLP4zno2LSutoiNhSmM1JklpIwjid3BIsOg/FRXE/Wf5mISXA
 fOywO004O/aN6cZT/x+JBLe/Fw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzC/znEm7g6SWABzaV06VBY2y9BWKEbRXRSbaRH8cAy80Qu1m8PhCO/oz8TivPdICdvt4gS+A==
X-Received: by 2002:a19:ef05:: with SMTP id n5mr6063058lfh.192.1567083908173; 
 Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.11.28] ([81.216.59.226])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j23sm346381ljc.6.2019.08.29.06.05.05
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Thu, 29 Aug 2019 06:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v11 7/8] open: openat2(2) syscall
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>, Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
References: <20190820033406.29796-1-cyphar@cyphar.com>
 <20190820033406.29796-8-cyphar@cyphar.com>
 <CAKOZuesfxRBJe314rkTKXtjXdz6ki3uAUBYVbu5Q2rd3=ADphQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190829121527.u2uvdyeatme5cgkb@yavin>
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <899401fa-ff0a-2ce9-8826-09904efab2d2@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:05:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190829121527.u2uvdyeatme5cgkb@yavin>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
 linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
 "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
 sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
 linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
 Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>, David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
 Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
 Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>,
 Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
 Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
 Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
 containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On 29/08/2019 14.15, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-08-24, Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com> wrote:

>> Why pad the structure when new functionality (perhaps accommodated via
>> a larger structure) could be signaled by passing a new flag? Adding
>> reserved fields to a structure with a size embedded in the ABI makes a
>> lot of sense --- e.g., pthread_mutex_t can't grow. But this structure
>> can grow, so the reservation seems needless to me.
> 
> Quite a few folks have said that ->reserved is either unnecessary or
> too big. I will be changing this, though I am not clear what the best
> way of extending the structure is. If anyone has a strong opinion on
> this (or an alternative to the ones listed below), please chime in. I
> don't have any really strong attachment to this aspect of the API.
> 
> There appear to be a few ways we can do it (that all have precedence
> with other syscalls):
> 
>  1. Use O_* flags to indicate extensions.
>  2. A separate "version" field that is incremented when we change.
>  3. Add a size_t argument to openat2(2).
>  4. Reserve space (as in this patchset).
> 
> (My personal preference would be (3), followed closely by (2).)

3, definitely, and instead of having to invent a new scheme for every
new syscall, make that the default pattern by providing a helper

int __copy_abi_struct(void *kernel, size_t ksize, const void __user
*user, size_t usize)
{
	size_t copy = min(ksize, usize);

	if (copy_from_user(kernel, user, copy))
		return -EFAULT;

	if (usize > ksize) {
		/* maybe a separate "return user_is_zero(user + ksize, usize -
ksize);" helper */
		char c;
		user += ksize;
		usize -= ksize;
		while (usize--) {
			if (get_user(c, user++))
				return -EFAULT;
			if (c)
				return -EINVAL;
		}
	} else if (ksize > usize) {
		memset(kernel + usize, 0, ksize - usize);
	}
	return 0;
}
#define copy_abi_struct(kernel, user, usize)	\
	__copy_abi_struct(kernel, sizeof(*kernel), user, usize)

> Both (1) and (2) have the problem that the "struct version" is inside
> the struct so we'd need to copy_from_user() twice. This isn't the end of
> the world, it just feels a bit less clean than is ideal. (3) fixes that
> problem, at the cost of making the API slightly more cumbersome to use
> directly (though again glibc could wrap that away).

I don't see how 3 is cumbersome to use directly. Userspace code does
struct openat_of_the_day args = {.field1 = x, .field3 = y} and passes
&args, sizeof(args). What does glibc need to do beyond its usual munging
of the userspace ABI registers to the syscall ABI registers?

Rasmus