Re: [PATCH 8/9] fhandle, pidfs: support open_by_handle_at() purely based on file handle

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 2:25 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 02:06:43PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 23-06-25 11:01:30, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > Various filesystems such as pidfs (and likely drm in the future) have a
> > > use-case to support opening files purely based on the handle without
> > > having to require a file descriptor to another object. That's especially
> > > the case for filesystems that don't do any lookup whatsoever and there's
> > > zero relationship between the objects. Such filesystems are also
> > > singletons that stay around for the lifetime of the system meaning that
> > > they can be uniquely identified and accessed purely based on the file
> > > handle type. Enable that so that userspace doesn't have to allocate an
> > > object needlessly especially if they can't do that for whatever reason.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hmm, maybe we should predefine some invalid fd value userspace should pass
> > when it wants to "autopick" fs root? Otherwise defining more special fd
> > values like AT_FDCWD would become difficult in the future. Or we could just
>
> Fwiw, I already did that with:
>
> #define PIDFD_SELF_THREAD               -10000 /* Current thread. */
> #define PIDFD_SELF_THREAD_GROUP         -20000 /* Current thread group leader. */
>
> I think the correct thing to do would have been to say anything below
>
> #define AT_FDCWD                -100    /* Special value for dirfd used to
>
> is reserved for the kernel. But we can probably easily do this and say
> anything from -10000 to -40000 is reserved for the kernel.
>
> I would then change:
>
> #define PIDFD_SELF_THREAD               -10000 /* Current thread. */
> #define PIDFD_SELF_THREAD_GROUP         -10001 /* Current thread group leader. */
>
> since that's very very new and then move
> PIDFD_SELF_THREAD/PIDFD_SELF_THREAD_GROUP to include/uapi/linux/fcntl.h
>
> and add that comment about the reserved range in there.
>
> The thing is that we'd need to enforce this on the system call level.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> > define that FILEID_PIDFS file handles *always* ignore the fd value and
> > auto-pick the root.
>
> I see the issue I don't think it's a big deal but I'm open to adding:
>
> #define AT_EBADF -10009 /* -10000 - EBADF */
>
> and document that as a stand-in for a handle that can't be resolved.
>
> Thoughts?

I think the AT prefix of AT_FDCWD may have been a mistake
because it is quite easy to confuse this value with the completely
unrelated namespace of AT_ flags.

This is a null dirfd value. Is it not?

FD_NULL, FD_NONE?

You could envision that an *at() syscalls could in theory accept
(FD_NONE , "/an/absolute/path/only", ...

or MOUNTFD_NONE if we want to define a constant specifically for
this open_by_handle_at() extension.

Thanks,
Amir.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux