Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/13] get rid of audit_reusename()

Christian Brauner <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.audit,org.kernel.vger.io-uring,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel
Message-ID <20251112-warzen-zusichern-8aa56fe3a744@brauner>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:41:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 at 21:17, Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > That's more about weird callers of getname(), but...
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS_SYSCALL
> > static int fs_index(const char __user * __name)
> > {
> >         struct file_system_type * tmp;
> >         struct filename *name;
> >         int err, index;
> >
> >         name = getname(__name);
> 
> Yeah, ok, this is certainly a somewhat unusual pattern in that "name"
> here is not a pathname, but at the same time I can't fault this code
> for using a convenient function for "allocate and copy a string from
> user space".
> 
> > Yes, really - echo $((`sed -ne "/.\<$1$/=" </proc/filesystems` - 1))
> > apparently does deserve a syscall.  Multiplexor, as well (other
> > subfunctions are about as hard to implement in userland)...
> 
> I think those are all "crazy legacy from back in the dark ages when we
> thought iBCS2 was a goal".
> 
> I doubt anybody uses that 'sysfs()' system call, and it's behind the
> SYSFS_SYSCALL config variable that was finally made "default n" this
> year, but has actually had a help-message that called it obsolete
> since at least 2014.
> 
> The code predates not just git, but the bitkeeper history too - and
> we've long since removed all the actual iBCS2 code (see for example
> commit 612a95b4e053: "x86: remove iBCS support", which removed some
> binfmt left-overs - back in 2008).
> 
> > IMO things like "xfs" or "ceph" don't look like pathnames - if
> > anything, we ought to use copy_mount_string() for consistency with
> > mount(2)...
> 
> Oh, absolutely not.
> 
> But that code certainly could just do strndup_user(). That's the
> normal thing for "get a string from user space" these days, but it
> didn't historically exist..
> 
> That said, I think that code will  just get removed, so it's not even
> worth worrying about. I don't think anybody even *noticed* that we
> made it "default n" after all these years.

Nobody noticed at all when I flipped the switch earlier this year. I
explicitly dit it to prepare for removal of the sysfs() system call so
I'm happy to pull the trigger any time!

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250415-dezimieren-wertpapier-9fd18a211a41@brauner
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.