From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753742AbbLKVFE (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:05:04 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:41799 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751422AbbLKVFB (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:05:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:04:00 +0000 From: Al Viro To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Greg KH , Jiri Slaby , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linus Torvalds , Aurelien Jarno , Andy Lutomirski , Florian Weimer , Serge Hallyn , Jann Horn , "security@kernel.org" , "security@ubuntu.com >> security" , security@debian.org, Willy Tarreau , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] devpts: Sensible /dev/ptmx & force newinstance Message-ID: <20151211210400.GL20997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1CB621EF-1647-463B-A144-D611DB150E15@zytor.com> <20151208223135.GA8352@kroah.com> <87oae0h2bo.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <56677DE3.5040705@zytor.com> <20151209012311.GA11794@kroah.com> <84B136DF-55E4-476A-9CB2-062B15677EE5@zytor.com> <20151209013859.GA12442@kroah.com> <20151209083225.GA30452@1wt.eu> <87wpskyds7.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wpskyds7.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > + inode = path.dentry->d_inode; > + filp->f_path = path; > + filp->f_inode = inode; > + filp->f_mapping = inode->i_mapping; > + path_put(&old); Don't. You are creating a fairly subtle constraint on what the code in fs/open.c and fs/namei.c can do, for no good reason. You can bloody well maintain the information you need without that. I'm less than thrilled about the whole approach as it is, but this definitely pushes it into the NAK-on-sight territory. We'd been through that 3 years ago when you brought that kind of hacks up last time; the objections still stand. Don't make it any more of a special snowflake than it absolutely has to be. We already have more than enough potential headache sources to keep track of when doing any kind of work on core kernel and extra ones are not appreciated. Really.