Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230517113351.308771-2-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
 <202305202107.BQoPnLYP-lkp@intel.com> <20230522-sammeln-neumond-e9a8d196056b@brauner>
 <ZGtr1RwK42We5ACI@corigine.com> <20230522131252.4f9959d3@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230522131252.4f9959d3@kernel.org>
From:   Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 21:17:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMw=ZnQ-diFqFUCEpqBTDTNojfvqaGCtZSvh8+rE_z-KBNreqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 21:13, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2023 15:19:17 +0200 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > TLI, that AF_UNIX can be a kernel module...
> > > I'm really not excited in exposing pidfd_prepare() to non-core kernel
> > > code. Would it be possible to please simply refuse SO_PEERPIDFD and
> > > SCM_PIDFD if AF_UNIX is compiled as a module? I feel that this must be
> > > super rare because it risks breaking even simplistic userspace.
> >
> > It occurs to me that it may be simpler to not allow AF_UNIX to be a module.
> > But perhaps that breaks something for someone...
>
> Both of the two options (disable the feature with unix=m, make unix
> bool) could lead to breakage, I reckon at least the latter makes
> the breakage more obvious? So not allowing AF_UNIX as a module
> gets my vote as well.
>
> A mechanism of exporting symbols for core/internal use only would
> find a lot of use in networking :(

We are eagerly waiting for this UAPI to be merged so that we can use
it in userspace (systemd/dbus/dbus-broker/polkitd), so I would much
rather if such impactful changes could be delayed until after, as
there is bound to be somebody complaining about such a change, and
making this dependent on that will likely jeopardize landing this
series.
v6 adds fixed this so that's disabled if AF_UNIX is not built-in via
'IS_BUILTIN', and that seems like a perfect starting point to me, if
AF_UNIX can be made non-optional or non-module it can be refactored
easily later.

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi