[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190420152855.GG2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:28:55 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: on adding new CLONE_* flags [WAS Re: [PATCH 0/4] clone: add
CLONE_PIDFD]
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:29:23PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Anyway, clone(2) is an enormous mess. Surely the right solution here
> is to have a whole new process creation API that takes a big,
> extensible struct as an argument, and supports *at least* the full
> abilities of posix_spawn() and ideally covers all the use cases for
> fork() + do stuff + exec(). It would be nifty if this API also had a
> way to say "add no_new_privs and therefore enable extra functionality
> that doesn't work without no_new_privs". This functionality would
> include things like returning a future extra-privileged pidfd that
> gives ptrace-like access.
You had been two weeks too late with that, and a bit too obvious with the use
of "surely" too close to the beginning...
If it was _not_ a belated AFD posting, alt.tasteless is over -> that way...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists