Re: [PATCH] selftests/exec: include cwd in long path calculation

Modulo the minor comment below: Reviewed-by: David Drysdale <drysd...@google.com> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Steve Muckle <smuckle.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > When creating a pathname close to PATH_MAX to test execveat, factor in > the current working directory path o

Re: [PATCH] selftests/exec: include cwd in long path calculation

Modulo the minor comment below: Reviewed-by: David Drysdale On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Steve Muckle wrote: > When creating a pathname close to PATH_MAX to test execveat, factor in > the current working directory path otherwise we end up with an absolute > path that is lo

Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 07:36:52PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > >> Oh, nice! >> >> It looks like this is somewhat similar to the old O_BENEATH proposal, >> but because the intentions behind the proposals are different >>

Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 07:36:52PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > >> Oh, nice! >> >> It looks like this is somewhat similar to the old O_BENEATH proposal, >> but because the intentions behind the proposals are different >> (application sandboxing versus

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

gt;>> - if (bio) >>> - return submit_bio_wait(WRITE, bio); >>> + if (bio) { >>> + ret = submit_bio_wait(WRITE, bio); >>> + bio_put(bio); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> return 0; >>> } >> >> >> This patch appears to fix the memory leak on my machine. >> >> Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > > > The patch appears to work here as well. > > Tested-by: Larry fin...@lwfinger.net > > Thanks, > > Larry > Works for me too. Tested-by: David Drysdale <drysd...@google.com>

Re: kmemleak report after 9082e87bfbf8 ("block: remove struct bio_batch")

t; - return submit_bio_wait(WRITE, bio); >>> + if (bio) { >>> + ret = submit_bio_wait(WRITE, bio); >>> + bio_put(bio); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> return 0; >>> } >> >> >> This patch appears to fix the memory leak on my machine. >> >> Tested-by: Catalin Marinas > > > The patch appears to work here as well. > > Tested-by: Larry fin...@lwfinger.net > > Thanks, > > Larry > Works for me too. Tested-by: David Drysdale

Re: linux-next memleak after IO on dax mountpoint

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:46:17PM +0800, Xiong Zhou wrote: > ... >> Still working on to id which commit in this merge causes this issuer, > > Narrowed down to: > > 37e5823 block: add offset in blk_add_request_payload() >

Re: linux-next memleak after IO on dax mountpoint

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Xiong Zhou wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:46:17PM +0800, Xiong Zhou wrote: > ... >> Still working on to id which commit in this merge causes this issuer, > > Narrowed down to: > > 37e5823 block: add offset in blk_add_request_payload() > e048948 blk-mq: Export

Re: [PATCH v2] x86: wire up compat readv2/writev2 syscalls

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > --- > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl | 4 ++-- > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH v2] x86: wire up compat readv2/writev2 syscalls

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > --- > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl | 4 ++-- > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] um: Add seccomp support

dd Luff's original patch in my local tree so I could do UML testing of Capsicum (which uses seccomp for some of its userspace implementation). I've replaced my patch with this version, as it's much more complete, and all my tests still work. Which I guess is kind of: Tested-by: David Drysdale Many than

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] um: Add seccomp support

uml tree. > > Thanks! > > -Kees I also had a version of Meredydd Luff's original patch in my local tree so I could do UML testing of Capsicum (which uses seccomp for some of its userspace implementation). I've replaced my patch with this version, as it's much more complete, and all

Re: RFC: fsyscall

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 07:25:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Andy Lutomirski writes: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric W. Biederman >> > wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps I had missed it but I don't recall capsicum being able

Re: RFC: fsyscall

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 07:25:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Andy Lutomirski writes: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric W. Biederman >> > wrote: >> >> >>

Re: RFC: fsyscall

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andy Lutomirski writes: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric W. Biederman > > wrote: > > >> Perhaps I had missed it but I don't recall capsicum being able to wrap > >> things like reboot(2). > >> > > > > Ah, so you want to be able

Re: RFC: fsyscall

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andy Lutomirski writes: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric W. Biederman > > wrote: > > >> Perhaps I had missed it but I don't recall capsicum being able to wrap >

Re: [PATCHv4 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:29 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) >> wrote: >>> On 13 August 2015 at 19:38, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug

Re: [PATCHv4 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On 13 August 2015 at 19:38, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:32 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: David Drysdale >> >> What's the behavior wrt fcntl(F_GE

Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds >> wrote: >>> >>> Does the attached patch make sense and work? >> >> Btw, I'm not all that happy with it anyway. >> >> I still think

Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote: Does the attached patch make sense and work?

Re: [PATCHv4 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 August 2015 at 19:38, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:32 AM, David Drysdale drysd...@google.com wrote: Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com What's

Re: [PATCHv4 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:29 AM, David Drysdale drysd...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 August 2015 at 19:38, Andy Lutomirski l

Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:28 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >>> On 08/13/2015 10:30 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >&g

Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On 08/13/2015 10:30 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I've got an odd regression with the v4.2 rc kernel, and I wondered if anyone >> else could reproduce it. >> >> The problem occurs with

[PATCHv4 2/3] selftests: Add test of O_BENEATH & openat(2)

Add simple tests of openat(2) variations, including examples that check the new O_BENEATH flag. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- tools/testing/selftests/Makefile | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/openat/.gitignore | 4 + tools/testing/selftests/openat/Makefile | 29 tools

[PATCHv4 1/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

of nd_jump_link() for following symlinks without path expansion, when O_BENEATH is set. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + fs/fcntl.c | 4 ++-- fs

[PATCHv4 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- man2/open.2 | 44 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) diff --git a/man2/open.2 b/man2/open.2 index f49ab3042161..d09511f9ffb0 100644 --- a/man2/open.2 +++ b/man2/open.2 @@ -201,6 +201,43 @@ See for further details

[PATCHv4 0/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

o v2 of Capsicum patchset: - renamed O_BENEATH_ONLY to O_BENEATH [Christoph Hellwig] David Drysdale (2): fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2) selftests: Add test of O_BENEATH & openat(2) arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + ar

[Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

Hi folks, I've got an odd regression with the v4.2 rc kernel, and I wondered if anyone else could reproduce it. The problem occurs with a seccomp-bpf filter program that's set up to return an errno value -- an errno of 1 is always returned instead of what's in the filter, plus other oddities

[Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

Hi folks, I've got an odd regression with the v4.2 rc kernel, and I wondered if anyone else could reproduce it. The problem occurs with a seccomp-bpf filter program that's set up to return an errno value -- an errno of 1 is always returned instead of what's in the filter, plus other oddities

[PATCHv4 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com --- man2/open.2 | 44 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) diff --git a/man2/open.2 b/man2/open.2 index f49ab3042161..d09511f9ffb0 100644 --- a/man2/open.2 +++ b/man2/open.2 @@ -201,6 +201,43 @@ See

[PATCHv4 0/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

of Capsicum patchset: - renamed O_BENEATH_ONLY to O_BENEATH [Christoph Hellwig] David Drysdale (2): fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2) selftests: Add test of O_BENEATH openat(2) arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/sparc

[PATCHv4 2/3] selftests: Add test of O_BENEATH openat(2)

Add simple tests of openat(2) variations, including examples that check the new O_BENEATH flag. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com --- tools/testing/selftests/Makefile | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/openat/.gitignore | 4 + tools/testing/selftests/openat/Makefile

[PATCHv4 1/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

of nd_jump_link() for following symlinks without path expansion, when O_BENEATH is set. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com --- arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + fs/fcntl.c

Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:28 AM, David Drysdale drysd...@google.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote: On 08/13/2015 10:30 AM, David Drysdale wrote: Hi folks, I've got

Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com wrote: On 08/13/2015 10:30 AM, David Drysdale wrote: Hi folks, I've got an odd regression with the v4.2 rc kernel, and I wondered if anyone else could reproduce it. The problem occurs with a seccomp-bpf filter program

[PATCHv4 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

kups [Josh Triplett] Changes since v1: - added paragraph on build requirements to Testing section [Shuah Khan, Peter Zijlstra] - various text clarifications [Kees Cook] - added Reviewed-by markers David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call Documentation/ad

[PATCHv4 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk Reviewed-by: Eric B Munson

Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, >> including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and >> covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). &g

[PATCHv4 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa

[PATCHv4 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

[Josh Triplett] Changes since v1: - added paragraph on build requirements to Testing section [Shuah Khan, Peter Zijlstra] - various text clarifications [Kees Cook] - added Reviewed-by markers David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call Documentation/adding

Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote: Hi! Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:48:32AM +0100, David Drysdale wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:52:11AM +0100, David Drysdale wrote: >> >> +needs to

[PATCHv3 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

since v1: - added paragraph on build requirements to Testing section [Shuah Khan, Peter Zijlstra] - various text clarifications [Kees Cook] - added Reviewed-by markers David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call Documentation/adding-syscalls.txt | 531

[PATCHv3 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk Reviewed-by: Eric B Munson

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:52:11AM +0100, David Drysdale wrote: >> Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, >> including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and >> covering 3

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 10:48:32AM +0100, David Drysdale wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:52:11AM +0100, David Drysdale wrote: +needs

[PATCHv3 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa

[PATCHv3 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

since v1: - added paragraph on build requirements to Testing section [Shuah Khan, Peter Zijlstra] - various text clarifications [Kees Cook] - added Reviewed-by markers David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call Documentation/adding-syscalls.txt | 531

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:52:11AM +0100, David Drysdale wrote: Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * David Drysdale wrote: > >> +Designing the API >> +- >> + >> +A new system call forms part of the API of the kernel, and has to be >> supported >> +indefinitely. As such

[PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk Reviewed-by: Eric B Munson

[PATCHv2 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

several clarifications and additions.) Changes since v1: - added paragraph on build requirements to Testing section [Shuah Khan, Peter Zijlstra] - various text clarifications [Kees Cook] - added Reviewed-by markers David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call

[PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa

[PATCHv2 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

several clarifications and additions.) Changes since v1: - added paragraph on build requirements to Testing section [Shuah Khan, Peter Zijlstra] - various text clarifications [Kees Cook] - added Reviewed-by markers David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote: * David Drysdale drysd...@google.com wrote: +Designing the API +- + +A new system call forms part of the API of the kernel, and has to be supported +indefinitely. As such, it's a very good idea

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:41 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >> Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, >> including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and >> covering 32-bit/64

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:59:16AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 07/28/2015 05:41 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >> > Given that I've gotten some of the details wrong in the past (and I've >> > seen others do li

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/1] UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:05 AM, David Drysdale wrote: >> A while ago I was trying to build a seccomp-bpf filter program that would >> survive a change of x86 architecture. This was complicated for all sorts of >

[PATCH RFC 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

to Andrew Morton for looking over an initial draft, and to Michael Kerrisk for suggesting several clarifications and additions.) David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call Documentation/adding-syscalls.txt | 454 ++ 1 file changed, 454

[PATCH RFC 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk --- Documentation/adding

[PATCH RFC 0/1] UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs

of definitions. For the new constants I've left in my original suggestion (__NR_amd64_) for the time being. What are folks' thoughts about the preferred naming for these? David Drysdale (1): UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs arch/x86/entry/syscalls/Makefile | 11

[PATCH RFC 1/1] UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs

numbers in form __NR_amd64_. For example, this allows a seccomp-bpf filter to include filtering for multiple architectures, and (in particular) to include x32 syscalls in an x86_64 filter. (Programmatic control of the audit framework is another possible use case.) Signed-off-by: David Drysdale

[PATCH RFC 0/1] UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs

of definitions. For the new constants I've left in my original suggestion (__NR_amd64_) for the time being. What are folks' thoughts about the preferred naming for these? David Drysdale (1): UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs arch/x86/entry/syscalls/Makefile | 11

[PATCH RFC 1/1] UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs

call numbers in form __NR_amd64_name. For example, this allows a seccomp-bpf filter to include filtering for multiple architectures, and (in particular) to include x32 syscalls in an x86_64 filter. (Programmatic control of the audit framework is another possible use case.) Signed-off-by: David

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/1] UAPI,x86: export syscall numbers for all x86 archs

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Paul Moore p...@paul-moore.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:05 AM, David Drysdale drysd...@google.com wrote: A while ago I was trying to build a seccomp-bpf filter program that would survive a change of x86 architecture. This was complicated for all sorts

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:59:16AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: On 07/28/2015 05:41 AM, David Drysdale wrote: Given that I've gotten some of the details wrong in the past (and I've seen others do likewise), I thought

[PATCH RFC 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering 32-bit/64-bit concerns (albeit in an x86-centric way). Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com Reviewed-by: Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa

[PATCH RFC 0/1] Document how to add a new syscall

to Andrew Morton for looking over an initial draft, and to Michael Kerrisk for suggesting several clarifications and additions.) David Drysdale (1): Documentation: describe how to add a system call Documentation/adding-syscalls.txt | 454 ++ 1 file changed, 454

Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] Documentation: describe how to add a system call

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:41 AM, David Drysdale drysd...@google.com wrote: Add a document describing the process of adding a new system call, including the need for a flags argument for future compatibility, and covering

Re: [PATCH] selftests/exec: Fix build on older distros.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Vinson Lee wrote: > From: Vinson Lee > > This patch fixes this build error on CentOS 5. > > execveat.c: In function ‘check_execveat_pathmax’: > execveat.c:185: error: ‘AT_EMPTY_PATH’ undeclared (first use in this function) > execveat.c:185: error: (Each

Re: [PATCH] selftests/exec: Fix build on older distros.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Vinson Lee v...@twopensource.com wrote: From: Vinson Lee v...@twitter.com This patch fixes this build error on CentOS 5. execveat.c: In function ‘check_execveat_pathmax’: execveat.c:185: error: ‘AT_EMPTY_PATH’ undeclared (first use in this function)

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] Introduce a new clone4 syscall with more flag bits and extensible arguments

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:11:45PM +0000, David Drysdale wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S >> > index 0286735..ba28306 1006

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] Introduce a new clone4 syscall with more flag bits and extensible arguments

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:11:45PM +, David Drysdale wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: diff --git a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S index 0286735..ba28306

Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] clone4: Add a CLONE_FD flag to get task exit notification via fd

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/compat.h b/include/linux/compat.h > index 6c4a68d..c90df5a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/compat.h > +++ b/include/linux/compat.h > @@ -299,6 +299,8 @@ struct compat_clone4_args { > compat_ulong_t

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:29 PM, wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:14:14PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On Monday 16 March 2015 14:44:20 Kees Cook wrote: >> > > O_CLOEXEC >> > > Set the close-on-exec flag on the new file >> > >descriptor. See the

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] Introduce a new clone4 syscall with more flag bits and extensible arguments

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: > diff --git a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S > index 0286735..ba28306 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S > +++ b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S > @@ -483,6 +483,7 @@ GLOBAL(\label) > PTREGSCALL stub32_execveat,

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:29 PM, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:14:14PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: On Monday 16 March 2015 14:44:20 Kees Cook wrote: O_CLOEXEC Set the close-on-exec flag on the new file descriptor. See

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] Introduce a new clone4 syscall with more flag bits and extensible arguments

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: diff --git a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S index 0286735..ba28306 100644 --- a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S +++ b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S @@ -483,6 +483,7 @@ GLOBAL(\label) PTREGSCALL

Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] clone4: Add a CLONE_FD flag to get task exit notification via fd

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: diff --git a/include/linux/compat.h b/include/linux/compat.h index 6c4a68d..c90df5a 100644 --- a/include/linux/compat.h +++ b/include/linux/compat.h @@ -299,6 +299,8 @@ struct compat_clone4_args {

Re: [PATCHv3 xfstests 2/3] generic: test openat and new O_BENEATH flag

02:00:11PM +, David Drysdale wrote: >> >> Test basic openat(2) behaviour. >> >> >> >> Test that if O_BENEATH flag is set, openat() will only open >> >> paths that have no .. component and do not start with /. >> >> Symlinks a

Re: [PATCHv3 xfstests 2/3] generic: test openat and new O_BENEATH flag

, 2015 at 02:00:11PM +, David Drysdale wrote: Test basic openat(2) behaviour. Test that if O_BENEATH flag is set, openat() will only open paths that have no .. component and do not start with /. Symlinks are also checked for the same restrictions. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd

Re: [PATCH 0/6] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:03:12PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On Friday 13 March 2015 18:11:32 Thiago Macieira wrote: >> > On Friday 13 March 2015 14:51:47 Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > > In any event, we should find out what FreeBSD

Re: [PATCH 0/6] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 04:05:29PM +0000, David Drysdale wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: >> > This patch series introduces a new clone flag, CLONE_FD, which lets the >> > calle

Re: [PATCH 0/6] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:03:12PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: On Friday 13 March 2015 18:11:32 Thiago Macieira wrote: On Friday 13 March 2015 14:51:47 Andy Lutomirski wrote: In any event, we should find out what

Re: [PATCH 0/6] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 04:05:29PM +, David Drysdale wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: This patch series introduces a new clone flag, CLONE_FD, which lets

Re: [PATCH 0/6] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: > This patch series introduces a new clone flag, CLONE_FD, which lets the caller > handle child process exit notification via a file descriptor rather than > SIGCHLD. CLONE_FD makes it possible for libraries to safely launch and manage >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] CLONE_FD: Task exit notification via file descriptor

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: This patch series introduces a new clone flag, CLONE_FD, which lets the caller handle child process exit notification via a file descriptor rather than SIGCHLD. CLONE_FD makes it possible for libraries to safely launch

Re: [PATCHv3 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On 03/09/2015 03:00 PM, David Drysdale wrote: >> Signed-off-by: David Drysdale > > Hi David, > > The text looks good insofar as it goes. But, it would be helpful > to have sentence or to that expla

[PATCHv3 xfstests 2/3] generic: test openat and new O_BENEATH flag

Test basic openat(2) behaviour. Test that if O_BENEATH flag is set, openat() will only open paths that have no .. component and do not start with /. Symlinks are also checked for the same restrictions. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- .gitignore| 1 + common/openat

[PATCHv3 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- man2/open.2 | 32 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) diff --git a/man2/open.2 b/man2/open.2 index 956531b24b26..be40dd7710df 100644 --- a/man2/open.2 +++ b/man2/open.2 @@ -716,6 +716,31 @@ XFS support was added .\" c

[PATCHv3 1/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

of nd_jump_link() for following symlinks without path expansion, when O_BENEATH is set. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + fs/fcntl.c | 4 ++-- fs

[PATCHv3 0/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

ONLY to O_BENEATH [Christoph Hellwig] David Drysdale (1): fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2) arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + fs/fcntl.c | 4 ++-- fs/nam

[PATCHv3 xfstests 2/3] generic: test openat and new O_BENEATH flag

Test basic openat(2) behaviour. Test that if O_BENEATH flag is set, openat() will only open paths that have no .. component and do not start with /. Symlinks are also checked for the same restrictions. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com --- .gitignore| 1 + common

[PATCHv3 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com --- man2/open.2 | 32 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) diff --git a/man2/open.2 b/man2/open.2 index 956531b24b26..be40dd7710df 100644 --- a/man2/open.2 +++ b/man2/open.2 @@ -716,6 +716,31 @@ XFS support was added

[PATCHv3 0/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

to O_BENEATH [Christoph Hellwig] David Drysdale (1): fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2) arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + fs/fcntl.c | 4 ++-- fs/namei.c

[PATCHv3 1/3] fs: add O_BENEATH flag to openat(2)

of nd_jump_link() for following symlinks without path expansion, when O_BENEATH is set. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com --- arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h | 1 + fs/fcntl.c

Re: [PATCHv3 man-pages 3/3] open.2: describe O_BENEATH flag

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/09/2015 03:00 PM, David Drysdale wrote: Signed-off-by: David Drysdale drysd...@google.com Hi David, The text looks good insofar as it goes. But, it would be helpful to have sentence

[PATCH 2/2] audit,x86: add x32_execve[at] to syscall classification

Treat x32 ABI variants of execve[at] the same as x86_64 variants. Slightly speculative as the audit subsystem doesn't currently work with x32 ABI syscalls. If and when audit+x32 does work, this should correctly classify exec calls. Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- arch/x86/kernel/audit_64.c

[PATCH 1/2] audit: add execveat to syscall classification

New execveat syscall from v3.19 is missing from audit_classify_compat_syscall(). Reported-by: Brian Gerst Signed-off-by: David Drysdale --- lib/compat_audit.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/lib/compat_audit.c b/lib/compat_audit.c index 873f75b640ab..a49469f0511d 100644

  1   2   3   4   >