From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham 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 0F6EEC04AB6 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 10:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D763920883 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 10:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brauner.io header.i=@brauner.io header.b="b7HAl2F4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726613AbfE1KIN (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 06:08:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com ([209.85.210.65]:42262 "EHLO mail-ot1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726345AbfE1KIM (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 06:08:12 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id i2so17179844otr.9 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 03:08:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brauner.io; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=EX6OLV5ZAUtrIspgTC/dD9s7hQyjTDGZmjCu936OSL8=; b=b7HAl2F4pyNTMb75RB18eK82rHnNb7sgimOIYVdxdoBd3KMFC5Gjs9sBasws5mbWSr 6MvIZ2l2IHj+B6MG2f2G9kG8nd2YTmTKodF/+81DHkSIq1siG+Rr4BEGz+78XEcDvogX faTEFwe/nSAFn9Dqy3uSjz+u0TI+Eatyzr+VHJNiT/clF9B7WrAW0rMRYEWj/4JMg6KQ JzUaH6ij8XJQ6dygU5bRCXts80yn8/Lqudl+AjGwYmc4F8fM+lMFJEatCRBMytSC7xHo WbHYBOCkAjSuq8yim7t//gtzYwulMNqxo/+3ecE5puMtJx9CwNP6PJTnbljhla7FTmOQ 9xiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=EX6OLV5ZAUtrIspgTC/dD9s7hQyjTDGZmjCu936OSL8=; b=PIDlaQ1X8yMflJXdepqi1/IRiEs9ROdSomgaHkQhcWCnXK2EuaILXnVspS5r4jHvNK /vFFxYlDj3xbGZvCbwZayLRLXWWQigXE+A9Pw2mG5K65rIVfxBnc+nFQjst3nytd3CCk aqyT+Zzs6K6mHj1aMQgrMT3fLWTRSMd8VCD4/hGzrtXb0lcLzjb28ksPj0TO2himjfoq SpACvZch9pRgIkgj600+GLG14Fh7jDYKRCNdZ1mZhgqlgaSXQRuOz6ySJgII0epVjVSP Zft0xhcuYk3Fjag/yV6MpZmvhwIt2W/YWV/dvDdhHTHswLrz8BprBcO5Ulv+ialyFI6P NQmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpoag/HPGOYHmtCbbOHK1kWty/d/XR3sqAcfzXtQ9sYx2iin8I ORvTU8Hn88m8NouowU0LqkHwaw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy+CVLW4qcGF5HZbujWnRF7l0dKamIr0LRxh4BCVKOiOumpEkoC7xrroBljDS1vYgtKHhWhrw== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5a14:: with SMTP id v20mr4657355oth.356.1559038092169; Tue, 28 May 2019 03:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brauner.io ([172.56.7.242]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q21sm4633894ota.24.2019.05.28.03.08.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 28 May 2019 03:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 12:08:04 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Al Viro , Linux List Kernel Mailing , Jann Horn , Florian Weimer , Oleg Nesterov , Arnd Bergmann , David Howells , Pavel Emelyanov , Andrew Morton , Adrian Reber , Andrei Vagin , Linux API Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fork: add clone6 Message-ID: <20190528100802.sdfqtwrowrmulpml@brauner.io> References: <20190526102612.6970-1-christian@brauner.io> <20190527104239.fbnjzfyxa4y4acpf@brauner.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:27:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:42 AM Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > Hm, still pondering whether having one unsigned int argument passed > > through registers that captures all the flags from the old clone() would > > be a good idea. > > That sounds like a reasonable thing to do. > > Maybe we could continue to call the old flags CLONE_XYZ and continue > to pass them in as "flags" argument, and then we have CLONE_EXT_XYZ > flags for a new 64-bit flag field that comes in through memory in the > new clone_args thing? Hm. I think I'll try a first version without an additional register flags argument. And here's why: I'm not sure it buys us a lot especially if we're giving up on making this convenient for seccomp anyway. And with that out of the way (at least for the moment) I would really like to make this interface consistent. But we can revisit this when I have the code. Christian