linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

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:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:49:50 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
        timmurray@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
        Prashant Dhamdhere <pdhamdhe@...hat.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Document /proc/pid PID reuse behavior

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:05:21 +0100
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:

> Why can't the documentation describe the current implementation, and
> change in the future if the implementation changes? I doubt somebody
> would ever rely on the pid being reused while having the descriptor
> open. How would that make sense?

In the hopes of ending this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and apply
this.  Documenting current behavior is good, especially in situations
where that behavior can surprise people; if the implementation changes,
the docs can change with it.

Thanks,

jon