linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Implement close-on-fork

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: <20220619104228.A9789201F7@orac.inputplus.co.uk>
Date:   Sun, 19 Jun 2022 11:42:28 +0100
From:   Ralph Corderoy <ralph@...utplus.co.uk>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc:     Nate Karstens <nate.karstens@...min.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement close-on-fork

Hi Matthew, thanks for replying.

> > The need for O_CLOFORK might be made more clear by looking at a
> > long-standing Go issue, i.e. unrelated to system(3), which was started
> > in 2017 by Russ Cox when he summed up the current race-condition
> > behaviour of trying to execve(2) a newly created file:
> > https://github.com/golang/go/issues/22315.
>
> The problem is that people advocating for O_CLOFORK understand its
> value, but not its cost.  Other google employees have a system which
> has literally millions of file descriptors in a single process.
> Having to maintain this extra state per-fd is a cost they don't want
> to pay (and have been quite vocal about earlier in this thread).

So do you agree the userspace issue is best solved by *_CLOFORK and the
problem is how to implement *_CLOFORK at an acceptable cost?

OTOH David Laight was making suggestions on moving the load to the
fork/exec path earlier in the thread, but OTOH Al Viro mentioned a
‘portable solution’, though that could have been to a specific issue
rather than the more general case.

How would you recommend approaching an acceptable cost is progressed?
Iterate on patch versions?  Open a bugzilla.kernel.org for central
tracking and linking from the other projects?  ..?

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.