Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:19:15 +0200
From: Alexey Gladkov <>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <>
Cc: LKML <>,
	Kernel Hardening <>,
	Linux API <>,
	Linux FS Devel <>,
	Linux Security Module <>,
	Akinobu Mita <>,
	Alexander Viro <>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	Daniel Micay <>,
	Djalal Harouni <>,
	"Dmitry V . Levin" <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"J . Bruce Fields" <>,
	Jeff Layton <>,
	Jonathan Corbet <>, Kees Cook <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Oleg Nesterov <>,
	David Howells <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v11 7/8] proc: use human-readable values for

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:05:50PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Gladkov <> writes:
> > The hidepid parameter values are becoming more and more and it becomes
> > difficult to remember what each new magic number means.
> So I relooked at the code.  And I think I was misreading things.
> However I think it is a legitimate concern.
> Can you please mention in your description of this change that
> switching from fsparam_u32 to fs_param_string is safe even when
> using the new mount api because fsparam_u32 and fs_param_string
> both are sent from userspace with "fsconfig(fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, ...)".


> Or words to that effect.  Ideally you will even manually test that case
> to confirm.

I will add a selftest for this.

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.