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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH 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 74C55C04AB6 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 14:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0DA214D8 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 14:15:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1559052952; bh=ShG2/A4FhAdJT2qz7S9PLDbLpRAkQ9u+na8LsK0DQiE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=oMltWsIDoOS5k9hQZk7ByA8rmyGIdzrbuLgU3EyMruD+nivggxfxsRKDNls8jQKp/ kroSOKf1Iga3L401uuyggS/6xe+mny8hQlGQGneE1j3RAZDxhrMC0kIAgLudXFk4oh 9SD3VboA9SDjjHAOSiU0Qrf09tFsxF9g2Vx5unPs= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727521AbfE1OPv (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 10:15:51 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51910 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726609AbfE1OPu (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 10:15:50 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f42.google.com (mail-wm1-f42.google.com [209.85.128.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A6E12166E for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 14:15:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1559052950; bh=ShG2/A4FhAdJT2qz7S9PLDbLpRAkQ9u+na8LsK0DQiE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=GJTKDDF+J9W2jQ2ltlRcnLaUPQBFyjPwO/wr2Qa6Cg1D4D57zmpvMKE0Q3SX0g2f9 CJch0bUCjsjTxpk4vqRWfTIgc3alFotcKHDW7HbtxNKu2jvuXsvJL2yliaes0/tXCW XTI9+oTumWtnhio02F73CPayKYzg6wuCRL+xR/yM= Received: by mail-wm1-f42.google.com with SMTP id i3so3138567wml.4 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 07:15:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVKXzW8GFbo5e7LxEiw3Zg7M8wEszZSdF83KyDWJI8gNwMrot5Q 6VTBQovflaSZXHAM3+5GR4/7yeoPv4tiqHF8vcdH1w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHYVceZheAVerV2ekvUbJezegITYz8MIBHeHUVXV67u+i/W2eLkCxvOK/ZV7DgVAnNqs9uOhjrd4aEQEwLE7E= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:d10e:: with SMTP id i14mr3649123wmg.161.1559052948518; Tue, 28 May 2019 07:15:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190526102612.6970-1-christian@brauner.io> <20190527104239.fbnjzfyxa4y4acpf@brauner.io> <20190528100802.sdfqtwrowrmulpml@brauner.io> In-Reply-To: <20190528100802.sdfqtwrowrmulpml@brauner.io> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 07:15:37 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fork: add clone6 To: Christian Brauner Cc: Linus Torvalds , 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:08 AM Christian Brauner wrote: > > 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. > Seems reasonable. Once the interface is nailed down, we can see if it makes sense to break out some flags into a register. I would guess that all the unsharing flags are a good candidate.