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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no 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 39530C2BA83 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 15:45:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030B72082F for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 15:45:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="cCyWw8XJ"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="cCyWw8XJ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726273AbgBOPpB (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Feb 2020 10:45:01 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:53224 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726234AbgBOPpB (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Feb 2020 10:45:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974FE8EE302; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 07:45:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1581781500; bh=8BdQtl6J59gHpnTgJx1w9OBE3CusPmGEQ8xUMldqtPU=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:From; b=cCyWw8XJNVS4P9rxbrYpr3NVke8eqqgzi05Gr8uYoPuFwrehLAg+XZvSmWhEW0+Jv OOkfMadAB2Cd8d4ZjOIykWqhU478rLsr0Zs7tHB+q+yh2HAt3Zly5VxU25KIl6TObi GuZ7sdDb/D+SNVc1sMQvexhRGDxn5OQNBM3AyP3k= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eyYLxwU_i8N1; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 07:45:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from jarvis.ext.hansenpartnership.com (jarvis.ext.hansenpartnership.com [153.66.160.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C7B68EE121; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 07:44:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1581781500; bh=8BdQtl6J59gHpnTgJx1w9OBE3CusPmGEQ8xUMldqtPU=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:From; b=cCyWw8XJNVS4P9rxbrYpr3NVke8eqqgzi05Gr8uYoPuFwrehLAg+XZvSmWhEW0+Jv OOkfMadAB2Cd8d4ZjOIykWqhU478rLsr0Zs7tHB+q+yh2HAt3Zly5VxU25KIl6TObi GuZ7sdDb/D+SNVc1sMQvexhRGDxn5OQNBM3AyP3k= Message-ID: <1581781497.3847.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: [LSF/MM/BPF Topic] Lets have the Interface debate: configfd vs fsconfig From: James Bottomley To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: David Howells , Christian Brauner , Al Viro , Miklos Szeredi , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 10:44:57 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org I've made the case in email that interfaces should always be as general as they can be. The counter argument is that interfaces which are too general can be too powerful and hard for containment logic, like seccomp, to properly constrain and predict the outcomes from the various parameters. So lets have that debate. My argument is that essentially we're good enough to handle the power wisely and we can design interfaces, like configfd, to have easy introspection properties for confinement tools, and I'm happy to debate this with anyone on the less power makes easier interfaces side. James