linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pidfd: add P

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:   Sat, 27 Jul 2019 09:41:25 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pidfd: add P_PIDFD to waitid()

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:28 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Something like
>
>   struct pid *fd_to_pid(unsigned int fd)
>   {
>         struct fd f;
>         struct pid *pid;
...

I forgot to put my usual disclaimer about TOTALLY UNTESTED GARBAGE in
that email. I want to make that part clear: that code snippet was
meant as a rough guide of direction, not as a "this works".

Hopefully that was clear.

Also note again that one of the reasons I would prefer that
"fd_to_pid()" interface is that you _can_ do it cleverly with RCU
lookup, but that requires a lot of care.

In particular, I think all of our _existing_
"proc_pid(file_inode(file))" users are done while you actually hold a
reference to "struct file *", so they don't have to worry about races
with another thread doing the final ->release(). So the "clever" thing
is possible, but might need a _lot_ of care to make sure the 'struct
pid *' associated with the file still exists.

The example code sequence was not doing the clever thing, obviously.
So it was untested _and_ simple-stupid. But it has the interface that
I'd prefer.

              Linus