[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190417141144.k2kmg7hd7pdpywyw@brauner.io>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:11:44 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
jannh@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com, luto@...nel.org,
arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com, keescook@...omium.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, dancol@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] signal: support CLONE_PIDFD with pidfd_send_signal
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 04:01:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > @@ -3581,12 +3588,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_send_signal, int, pidfd, int, sig,
> > if (flags)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - f = fdget_raw(pidfd);
> > + f = fdget(pidfd);
>
> could you explain this change?
>
> I am just curious, I don't understand why should we disallow O_PATH and how
> this connects to this patch.
Sending a signal through a pidfd is considered to be on a par with a
"write" to that pidfd.
Additionally, we use the fops associated with the fd to detect whether
it is actually a pidfd or not. This is not possible with O_PATH since
f_ops will be set to dummy fops. So we already correctly error out since
we detect that it is an O_PATH before fdget_raw(). This just takes the
opportunity to fix it.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists