linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd

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

Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 16:36:24 -0700
From:   Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 4:33 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 4:20 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 1:11 AM Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's also worth noting that POLLERR/POLLHUP/POLLNVAL cannot be masked
> > > for "poll()". Even if you only ask for POLLIN/POLLOUT, you will always
> > > get POLLERR/POLLHUP notification. That is again historical behavior,
> > > and it's kind of a "you can't poll a hung up fd". But it once again
> > > means that you should consider POLLHUP to be something *exceptional*
> > > and final, where no further or other state changes can happen or are
> > > relevant.
> >
> > Which kind of makes sense for process exit. So the historical behavior
> > here is in our favor and having POLLIN | POLLHUP rather fitting.
> > It just seems right that POLLHUP indicates "there can be
> > no more state transitions".
>
> Note that that is *not* true of process exit.
>
> The final state transition isn't "exit", it is actually "process has
> been reaped".  That's the point where data no longer exists.

FWIW, I think the exit status should be available via pidfd even after
process reaping. A non-parent holder of a pidfd has no ability to
control when the parent reaps the child, or even if reaping is
necessary at all --- the parent could make SIGCHLD SIG_IGN. Someone
trying to read exit status via a pidfd shouldn't fail to get that exit
status just because he lost the race with a concurrent waitpid().