linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL RESEND] pidfd changes for v5.1-rc1

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: <20190313091001.6a3wzh6evpe4hxdn@brauner.io>
Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:10:03 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Jonathon Kowalski <bl0pbl33p@...il.com>
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...uxtronix.de
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL RESEND] pidfd changes for v5.1-rc1

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 05:00:57AM +0000, Jonathon Kowalski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the work on this system call! I am interested in making use of it
> in my process supervisor. It works pretty well and avoids the long-standing
> issue of PID reuse.

Thanks! The systemd folks have been quite excited about this too.

> 
> One thing that instantly came to mind is to be able to delegate killing to
> some third process depending on the confguration. However, I don't see that
> permissions are attached to the open file description, but seemed to be
> checked when calling pidfd_send_signal as they are with kill(2). Is there

It came up during the discussion. We all preferred to have something
simple and not introduce a new permission model.

There's nothing necessarily blocking us from doing this in the future
though. It's not off the table but out of scope for now.

Thanks!
Christian