[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1QSJTOb-DAQuVpa5feUe9K-pr8aYuyd=yXg0n9eSg-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:39:25 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
bl0pbl33p@...il.com, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Nagarathnam Muthusamy <nagarathnam.muthusamy@...cle.com>,
cyphar@...har.com, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] signal: support pidctl() with pidfd_send_signal()
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:21 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> Let pidfd_send_signal() use pidfds retrieved via pidctl(). With this patch
> pidfd_send_signal() becomes independent of procfs. This fullfils the
> request made when we merged the pidfd_send_signal() patchset. The
> pidfd_send_signal() syscall is now always available allowing for it to be
> used by users without procfs mounted or even users without procfs support
> compiled into the kernel.
[...]
> static bool access_pidfd_pidns(struct pid *pid)
> {
> + int ret;
> struct pid_namespace *active = task_active_pid_ns(current);
> struct pid_namespace *p = ns_of_pid(pid);
>
> - for (;;) {
> - if (!p)
> - return false;
> - if (p == active)
> - break;
> - p = p->parent;
> - }
> + ret = pidnscmp(active, p);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return false;
>
> return true;
> }
Nit, if we keep this function: "if (...) return false; return true;"
seems like an antipattern to me. How about "return ret >= 0", or even
"return pidnscmp(active, p) >= 0"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists