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]

Message-ID: <20240127193127.GC13787@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:31:27 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 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 01/27, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> > > > exit_notify() is called after exit_files(). pidfd_getfd() returns
> > > > ESRCH if the exiting thread completes release_task(), otherwise it
> > > > returns EBADF because ->files == NULL. This too doesn't really
> > > > depend on PIDFD_THREAD.
> > >
> > > Yup, understood. It just seems like an inconsistency we might want to
> > > fix.
> >
> > Not sure this worth "fixing"...
>
> Yep, maybe not. Just wanted to point it out.

On the second thought I am starting to understand your concern...

Indeed, in this case -EBADF is technically correct but it can confuse
the user which doesn't or can't know that this task/thread is exiting,
because EBADF looks as if the "int fd" argument was wrong.

Sorry I missed your point before.

Oleg.