linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] pidfd: add CLONE_WAIT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:41:49 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, joel@...lfernandes.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        tj@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        luto@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] pidfd: add CLONE_WAIT_PID

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 01:25:03PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/25, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:35:44PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I have to admit this feature looks a bit exotic to me...
> >
> > It might look like it from the kernels perspective but from the feedback
> > on this when presenting on this userspace has real usecases for this.
> 
> OK...
> 
> but then perhaps we can make PF_WAIT_PID more flexible.

I've changed this to be a property on signal_struct, i.e. a bitfield
entry following the {is,has}_child_subreaper entries.

> 
> Say, we can add the new WXXX wait option and change eligible_child()
> 
> 	if ((p->flags & PF_WAIT_PID) && (wo->options & WXXX))
> 		return 0;
> 
> this way the parent can tell waitid() whether the PF_WAIT_PID tasks should
> be filtered or not.
> 
> And if we do this we can even add PR_SET_WAIT_PID/PR_CLR_WAIT_PID instead
> of the new CLONE_ flag.

Hm, I prefer to not do this.
The idea is that this is a property of the pidfd itself and not of the
waitid() call. And currently, I don't think it makes sense to change
this property at runtime.
What might make sense is to remove this property when a task gets
reparented, i.e. when its parent has died.