linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pidns: Limit kill -1 and cap_set

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m1d4uxpzfi.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:07:29 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pidns: Limit kill -1 and cap_set_all

Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org> writes:

> I dislike this patch:
> it's not scalable/efficient to travers all the tasks
> while we know the pid namespace we care about.

Well the unix way is to implement it simple and stupid and then to
optimize, where needed.  We don't currently have a per pid namespace
list of processes or tasks.

This is a trivial bug fix patch, and I wanted the review to be as
simple as possible.

I don't expect people are doing kill -1 all that frequently as it is a
bit rude.

I have no problem doing find_ge_pid and then looking in the hash table
like we do in /proc.  It likely will have fewer conflicts, but that
is a bit harder to review, and is actually more code.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/