Re: [PATCH -next 0/3] sysvipc: introduce STAT_ALL commands

[Davidlohr Bueso <dave-h16yJtLeMjHk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

>Davidlohr Bueso <dave-h16yJtLeMjHk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The following patches adds the discussed[1] new command for shm
>> as well as for sems and msq as they are subject to the same discrepancies
>> for ipc object permission checks between the syscall and via procfs.
>> These new commands are justified in that (1) we are stuck with this
>> semantics as changing syscall and procfs can break userland; and (2) some
>> users can benefit from performance (for large amounts of shm segments,
>> for example) from not having to parse the procfs interface.
>>
>> Once (if) merged, I will submit the necesary manpage updates. But I'm
>> thinking something like:
>
>I am just going to kibitz for a moment.

Nice word that, kibitz.

>
>Could we name this _STAT_ANY or _STAT_NOPERM instead of _STAT_ALL.
>
>I keep thinking a name with _ALL in it should affect all ipc opbjects of
>a given type, not simply work any ipc object regardless of permissions.

Yeah, and _ALL similarly makes the difference of IPC_STAT and SHM_STAT wrt
the passed shmid that more adhoc.

I'm going to go with _STAT_ANY.

Thanks,
Davidlohr