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:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 04:12:53 +0300
From:   "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc:     io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] fs: Support setting a minimum fd for "lowest
 available fd" allocation
Message-ID: <20200423011253.GA18957@altlinux.org>
References: <cover.1587531463.git.josh@joshtriplett.org>
 <05c9a6725490c5a5c4ee71be73326c2fedf35ba5.1587531463.git.josh@joshtriplett.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <05c9a6725490c5a5c4ee71be73326c2fedf35ba5.1587531463.git.josh@joshtriplett.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:19:49PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Some applications want to prevent the usual "lowest available fd"
> allocation from allocating certain file descriptors. For instance, they
> may want to prevent allocation of a closed fd 0, 1, or 2 other than via
> dup2/dup3, or reserve some low file descriptors for other purposes.
> 
> Add a prctl to increase the minimum fd and return the previous minimum.
> 
> System calls that allocate a specific file descriptor, such as
> dup2/dup3, ignore this minimum.
> 
> exec resets the minimum fd, to prevent one program from interfering with
> another program's expectations about fd allocation.

Please make this aspect properly documented in "Effect on process
attributes" section of execve(2) manual page.

[...]
> +unsigned int increase_min_fd(unsigned int num)
> +{
> +	struct files_struct *files = current->files;
> +	unsigned int old_min_fd;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> +	old_min_fd = files->min_fd;
> +	files->min_fd += num;
> +	spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> +	return old_min_fd;
> +}

If it's "increase", there should be an overflow check.
Otherwise it's "assign" rather than "increase".


-- 
ldv