linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add 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]

Message-ID: <20190516142659.GB22564@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 16:27:00 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     jannh@...gle.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        arnd@...db.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        elena.reshetova@...el.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        luto@...capital.net, luto@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, dancol@...gle.com, serge@...lyn.com,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] pid: add pidfd_open()

On 05/16, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> With the introduction of pidfds through CLONE_PIDFD it is possible to
> created pidfds at process creation time.

Now I am wondering why do we need CLONE_PIDFD, you can just do

	pid = fork();
	pidfd_open(pid);

> +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, flags)
> +{
> +	int fd, ret;
> +	struct pid *p;
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (pid <= 0)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	p = find_get_pid(pid);
> +	if (!p)
> +		return -ESRCH;
> +
> +	ret = 0;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * If this returns non-NULL the pid was used as a thread-group
> +	 * leader. Note, we race with exec here: If it changes the
> +	 * thread-group leader we might return the old leader.
> +	 */
> +	tsk = pid_task(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> +	if (!tsk)
> +		ret = -ESRCH;
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	fd = ret ?: pidfd_create(p);
> +	put_pid(p);
> +	return fd;
> +}

Looks correct, feel free to add Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

But why do we need task_struct *tsk?

	rcu_read_lock();
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_read_unlock();

and in fact we do not even need rcu_read_lock(), we could do

	// shut up rcu_dereference_check()
	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
	if (!pid_task(PIDTYPE_TGID))
		ret = -ESRCH;
	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);

Well... I won't insist, but the comment about the race with exec looks a bit
confusing to me. It is true, but we do not care at all, we are not going to
use the task_struct returned by pid_task().

Oleg.