Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:59:50 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        zab@redhat.com, emunson@akamai.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        aarcange@redhat.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, xemul@parallels.com,
        sfr@canb.auug.org.au, milosz@adfin.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        arnd@arndb.de, ebiederm@xmission.com, gorcunov@openvz.org,
        iulia.manda21@gmail.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        mguzik@redhat.com, adobriyan@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, gorcunov@gmail.com, fw@deneb.enyo.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.
Message-ID: <20160413135950.GA12128@kroah.com>
References: <1460552272-15985-1-git-send-email-rjones@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1460552272-15985-1-git-send-email-rjones@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1483
Lines: 52

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:57:50PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> v1 -> v2:
> 
>  - Use current_umask() instead of current->fs->umask.
> 
>  - Retested it.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It's not possible to read the process umask without also modifying it,
> which is what umask(2) does.  A library cannot read umask safely,
> especially if the main program might be multithreaded.
> 
> This patch series adds a trivial system call "getumask" which returns
> the umask of the current process.
> 
> Another approach to this has been attempted before, adding something
> to /proc, although it didn't go anywhere.  See:
> 
>   http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1292109
> 
> Another way to solve this would be to add a thread-safe getumask to
> glibc.  Since glibc could own the mutex, this would permit libraries
> linked to this glibc to read umask safely.
> 
> I should also note that man-pages documents getumask(3), but no
> version of glibc has ever implemented it.
> 
> Typical test script:
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <linux/unistd.h>
> #include <sys/syscall.h>
> 
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
>   int r = syscall(329);
>   if (r == -1) {
>     perror("getumask");
>     exit(1);
>   }
>   printf("umask = %o\n", r);
>   exit(0);
> }

Why not add this to the ktest infrastructure, we strongly encourage that
for new syscalls, along with a man page patch.

thanks,

greg k-h