[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d08pkh4u.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 11:05:21 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Security Module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/9] proc: use human-readable values for hidehid
Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com> writes:
> The hidepid parameter values are becoming more and more and it becomes
> difficult to remember what each new magic number means.
In principle I like this change. In practice I think you have just
broken ABI compatiblity with the new mount ABI.
In particular the following line seems broken.
> diff --git a/fs/proc/root.c b/fs/proc/root.c
> index dbcd96f07c7a..ba782d6e6197 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/root.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/root.c
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ enum proc_param {
>
> static const struct fs_parameter_spec proc_fs_parameters[] = {
> fsparam_u32("gid", Opt_gid),
> - fsparam_u32("hidepid", Opt_hidepid),
> + fsparam_string("hidepid", Opt_hidepid),
> fsparam_string("subset", Opt_subset),
> {}
> };
As I read fs_parser.c fs_param_is_u32 handles string inputs and turns them
into numbers, and it handles binary numbers. However fs_param_is_string
appears to only handle strings. It appears to have not capacity to turn
raw binary numbers into strings.
So I think we probably need to fix fs_param_is_string to raw binary
numbers before we can safely make this change to fs/proc/root.c
David am I reading the fs_parser.c code correctly? If I am are you ok
with a change like the above?
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
