linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group leaders

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: <87wmtog7ht.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 08 Dec 2023 14:15:58 +0100
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group leaders

* Christian Brauner:

> File descriptors are reachable for all processes/threads that share a
> file descriptor table. Changing that means breaking core userspace
> assumptions about how file descriptors work. That's not going to happen
> as far as I'm concerned.

It already has happened, though?  Threads are free to call
unshare(CLONE_FILES).  I'm sure that we have applications out there that
expect this to work.  At this point, the question is about whether we
want to acknowledge this possibility at the libc level or not.

Thanks,
Florian