From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752898AbbDGAyj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:54:39 -0400
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:49593 "EHLO
	out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752753AbbDGAyg (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:54:36 -0400
X-Sasl-enc: 9Co9dJPICYtHfPVN+jfKBFiHwb++heRvt/BvCt6fU/Ot 1428368075
Message-ID: <1428368070.2705.12.camel@pluto.fritz.box>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5 7/7] KEYS: exec request key within service thread
 of key creator
From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <onestero@redhat.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 08:54:30 +0800
In-Reply-To: <18931.1427979484@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <20150331031533.10464.1615.stgit@pluto.fritz.box>
	 <20150331030340.10464.30272.stgit@pluto.fritz.box>
	 <18931.1427979484@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:58 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> 
> > +
> > +	/* Namespace token */
> > +	int umh_token;
> 
> If you could put it after data_len so that all the smaller-than-wordsize
> fields are together for better packing.

OK.

> 
> > +		umh_wq_put_token(key->umh_token);
> 
> Does gc.c need an extra #include for this?

Umm ... you'd think so, wonder how it compiled without kmod.h ....

> 
> > +	/* If running within a container use the container namespace */
> > +	if (current->nsproxy->net_ns != &init_net)
> > +		key->umh_token = umh_wq_get_token(0, "keys");
> 
> So keys live in the networking namespace?

Perhaps checking the pid namespace would make more sense?

> 
> > -	ret = call_usermodehelper_keys(argv[0], argv, envp, keyring,
> > -				       UMH_WAIT_PROC);
> > +	/* If running within a container use the container namespace */
> > +	if (key->umh_token)
> > +		ret = call_usermodehelper_keys_service(argv[0], argv, envp,
> > +						       keyring, key->umh_token,
> > +						       UMH_WAIT_PROC);
> > +	else
> > +		ret = call_usermodehelper_keys(argv[0], argv, envp,
> > +					       keyring, UMH_WAIT_PROC);
> 
> call_usermodehelper_keys_service() would appear to be superfluous.  If
> key->umh_token is 0, you call call_usermodehelper_keys() which then calls
> call_usermodehelper_keys_service() with a 0 token...

Yeah, not really worth the additional function. IIRC there are no other
callers of call_usermodehelper_keys().

> 
> David