From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 14:08:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230523140844.5895d645@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMw=ZnS8GBTDV0rw+Dh6hPv3uLXJVwapRFQHLMYEYGZHNoLNOw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:01 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > I really would like to avoid that because it will just mean that someone
> > else will abuse that function and then make an argument why we should
> > export the other function.
> >
> > I think it would be ok if we required that unix support is built in
> > because it's not unprecedented either and we're not breaking anything.
> > Bpf has the same requirement:
> >
> > #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> > struct bpf_unix_iter_state {
> > struct seq_net_private p;
> > unsigned int cur_sk;
> > unsigned int end_sk;
> > unsigned int max_sk;
> > struct sock **batch;
> > bool st_bucket_done;
> > };
> >
> > and
> >
> > #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
> > DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(unix, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta,
> > struct unix_sock *unix_sk, uid_t uid)
Don't think we should bring BPF into arguments about uAPI consistency :S
> Some data points: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, Archlinux all
> ship with CONFIG_UNIX=y, so a missing SCM_PIDFD in unlikely to have a
> widespread impact, and if it does, it might encourage someone to
> review their kconfig.
IDK how you can argue that everyone sets UNIX to =y so hiding SCM_PIDFD
is fine and at the same time not be okay with making UNIX a bool :S
> As mentioned on the v5 thread, we are waiting for this API to get the
> userspace side sorted (systemd/dbus/dbus-broker/polkit), so I'd be
> really grateful if we could start with the simplest and most
> conservative approach (which seems to be the current one in v6 to me),
> and then eventually later decide whether to export more functions, or
> to deprecate CONFIG_UNIX=m, or something else entirely, as that
> doesn't really affect the shape of the UAPI, just the details of its
> availability. Thank you.
Just throw in a patch to make UNIX a bool and stop arguing then.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-23 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-22 13:24 [PATCH net-next v6 0/3] Add SCM_PIDFD and SO_PEERPIDFD Alexander Mikhalitsyn
2023-05-22 13:24 ` [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD Alexander Mikhalitsyn
2023-05-22 20:34 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-23 9:49 ` Christian Brauner
2023-05-23 10:44 ` Luca Boccassi
2023-05-23 21:08 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2023-05-24 10:43 ` Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn
2023-05-24 10:47 ` Luca Boccassi
2023-05-24 15:19 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-05-24 15:45 ` Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn
2023-06-04 18:02 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-06-04 18:07 ` Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn
2023-06-08 20:28 ` Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn
2023-05-22 13:24 ` [PATCH net-next v6 2/3] net: core: add getsockopt SO_PEERPIDFD Alexander Mikhalitsyn
2023-05-22 13:24 ` [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] selftests: net: add SCM_PIDFD / SO_PEERPIDFD test Alexander Mikhalitsyn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230523140844.5895d645@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bluca@debian.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mzxreary@0pointer.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).