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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 23:39:10 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: pidfd design

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 01:14:01PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:07 PM Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> We already have pidfds, and we've had them since /proc was added ages
> ago.

New pidfd code (or whatever the name) should NOT depend on /proc and
should not interact with VFS at all at any point (other than probably
being a descriptor on a fake filesystem). The reason is that /proc is
full of crap and you don't want to spill that into new and hopefully
properly designed part of new code.