Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:19:15 +0200
From:   Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Security Module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v11 7/8] proc: use human-readable values for
 hidepid
Message-ID: <20200419141915.g4bdjbwvhpre7mra@comp-core-i7-2640m-0182e6>
References: <20200409123752.1070597-1-gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
 <20200409123752.1070597-8-gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
 <87imhyaq5t.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87imhyaq5t.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:05:50PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > The hidepid parameter values are becoming more and more and it becomes
> > difficult to remember what each new magic number means.
> 
> So I relooked at the code.  And I think I was misreading things.
> However I think it is a legitimate concern.
> 
> Can you please mention in your description of this change that
> switching from fsparam_u32 to fs_param_string is safe even when
> using the new mount api because fsparam_u32 and fs_param_string
> both are sent from userspace with "fsconfig(fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, ...)".

Sure.

> Or words to that effect.  Ideally you will even manually test that case
> to confirm.

I will add a selftest for this.

-- 
Rgrds, legion