[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200409143251.pqoprbjnetoup5vw@comp-core-i7-2640m-0182e6>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:32:51 +0200
From: Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.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>,
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
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:05:21AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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.
Yes, you can use: fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_SET_BINARY, ...); but in this
case the type of parameter will be fs_value_is_blob [1]. This kind of
parameters is handled by fs_param_is_blob(). The fs_param_is_u32 can
handle only parametes with fs_value_is_string type [2].
Am I missing something?
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/fsopen.c#n405
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/fs/fs_parser.c#n215
> 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
>
--
Rgrds, legion
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.
