linux-kernel - Re: pidfd design

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 23:07:02 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:     christian@...uner.io
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dancol@...gle.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: pidfd design

> What would be your opinion to having a
> /proc/<pid>/handle
> file instead of having a dirfd.

This is even worse than depending on PROC_FS. Just for the dependency
pidfd code should be backed out immediately. Forget about /proc.