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: <20230522132439.634031-1-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
 <20230522132439.634031-2-aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
 <20230522133409.5c6e839a@kernel.org> <20230523-flechten-ortsschild-e5724ecc4ed0@brauner>
 <CAMw=ZnS8GBTDV0rw+Dh6hPv3uLXJVwapRFQHLMYEYGZHNoLNOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230523140844.5895d645@kernel.org> <CAEivzxeS2J5i0RJDvFHq-U_RAU5bbKVF5ZbphYDGoPcMZTsE3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEivzxeS2J5i0RJDvFHq-U_RAU5bbKVF5ZbphYDGoPcMZTsE3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 11:47:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMw=ZnRmNaoRb2uceatrV8EAufJSKZzD2AsfT5PJE8NBBOrHCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD
To:     Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, davem@davemloft.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        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"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 11:43, Aleksandr Mikhalitsyn
<aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:08 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:44:01 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > > I really would like to avoid that because it will just mean that someone
> > > > else will abuse that function and then make an argument why we should
> > > > export the other function.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be ok if we required that unix support is built in
> > > > because it's not unprecedented either and we're not breaking anything.
> > > > Bpf has the same requirement:
> > > >
> > > >   #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL)
> > > >   struct bpf_unix_iter_state {
> > > >           struct seq_net_private p;
> > > >           unsigned int cur_sk;
> > > >           unsigned int end_sk;
> > > >           unsigned int max_sk;
> > > >           struct sock **batch;
> > > >           bool st_bucket_done;
> > > >   };
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > >   #if IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_UNIX) && defined(CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
> > > >   DEFINE_BPF_ITER_FUNC(unix, struct bpf_iter_meta *meta,
> > > >                        struct unix_sock *unix_sk, uid_t uid)
> >
> > Don't think we should bring BPF into arguments about uAPI consistency :S
> >
> > > Some data points: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, Archlinux all
> > > ship with CONFIG_UNIX=y, so a missing SCM_PIDFD in unlikely to have a
> > > widespread impact, and if it does, it might encourage someone to
> > > review their kconfig.
> >
> > IDK how you can argue that everyone sets UNIX to =y so hiding SCM_PIDFD
> > is fine and at the same time not be okay with making UNIX a bool :S
> >
> > > As mentioned on the v5 thread, we are waiting for this API to get the
> > > userspace side sorted (systemd/dbus/dbus-broker/polkit), so I'd be
> > > really grateful if we could start with the simplest and most
> > > conservative approach (which seems to be the current one in v6 to me),
> > > and then eventually later decide whether to export more functions, or
> > > to deprecate CONFIG_UNIX=m, or something else entirely, as that
> > > doesn't really affect the shape of the UAPI, just the details of its
> > > availability. Thank you.
> >
> > Just throw in a patch to make UNIX a bool and stop arguing then.
>
> Dear Jakub,
>
> Thanks for your attention to these patch series!
>
> I'm ready to prepare/send a patch to make CONFIG_UNIX bool.
>
> I will send SO_PEERPIDFD as an independent patch too, because it
> doesn't require this change with CONFIG_UNIX
> and we can avoid waiting until CONFIG_UNIX change will be merged.
> I've a feeling that the discussion around making CONFIG_UNIX  to be a
> boolean won't be easy and fast ;-)

Thank you, that sounds great to me, I can start using SO_PEERPIDFD
independently of SCM_PIDFD, there's no hard dependency between the
two.

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi