linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 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]

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:49:02 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>, 
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group
 leaders

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:36:50AM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:30:46PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > On 01/25, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One of the things I don't like about PIDFD_THREAD is that it's hard to
> > > > tell whether an arbitrary thread is a leader or not. Right now we do
> > > > it by parsing /proc/pid/status, which shows all the stuff from
> > > > do_task_stat() that we don't care about but which is quite expensive
> > > > to compute. (Maybe there's a better way?)
> > > >
> > > > With PIDFD_THREAD we could could do it twice, once with the flag, get
> > > > EINVAL, and then do it again. But ideally we wouldn't have to.
> > >
> > > Too late for me, most probably I misunderstood.
> > >
> > > If you want the PIDFD_THREAD behaviour, you can always use this flag
> > > without any check...
> 
> Sorry, I hadn't read the patch. If it's ok to use PIDFD_THREAD on a
> leader, then we can just always specify it. (We don't care about the
> behavior of pidfd_poll().)
> 
> > > Could you spell?
> > 
> > Just in case, we can even add PIDFD_AUTO (modulo naming) which acts as
> > PIDFD_THREAD if the target task is not a leader or 0 (current behaviour)
> > otherwise. Trivial.
> 
> Yep, or given the above, maybe it'll work as-is, thank you.

Yes, let's rather do the explicit PIDFD_THREAD.