[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKOZueuCYOsaHZzoz5nNPr8Jb-fEiHTR4MektaJx8vuUXcrKCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:38:20 -0800
From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Primiano Tucci <primiano@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
Prashant Dhamdhere <pdhamdhe@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, linux@...inikbrodowski.net,
pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, ktsanaktsidis@...desk.com,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add /proc/pid_generation
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:31 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:14:44PM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > This change adds a per-pid-namespace 64-bit generation number,
> > incremented on PID rollover, and exposes it via a new proc file
> > /proc/pid_generation. By examining this file before and after /proc
> > enumeration, user code can detect the potential reuse of a PID and
> > restart the task enumeration process, repeating until it gets a
> > coherent snapshot.
> >
> > PID rollover ought to be rare, so in practice, scan repetitions will
> > be rare.
>
> Then why does it need to be 64-bit?
[Resending because of accidental HTML. I really need to switch to a
better email client.]
Because 64 bits is enough for anyone. :-) A u64 is big enough that
we'll never observe an overflow on a running system, and PID
namespaces are rare enough that we won't miss the four extra bytes we
use by upgrading from a u32. And after reading about some security
problems caused by too-clever handling of 32-bit rollover, I'd rather
the code be obviously correct than save a trivial amount of space.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists