linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect PIDFD

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, 9 Feb 2024 16:49:29 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, 
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect
 PIDFD_THREAD

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/09, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > How do you feel about the following (untested...) addition?
> 
> LGTM, but let me read this patch once again tomorrow, I have
> a headache today.

Bah, feel better!

> 
> > I've played with PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP as well but that code is
> > fairly new to me so I would need some more time.
> 
> Heh, I was going to send another email to discuss this ;)
> 
> Should be simple, but may be need some simple preparations.
> 
> Especially if we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP.
> 
> So the question: do you think we also want PIDFD_SIGNAL_SESSION_GROUP?

Thought about this as well and my feeling is to wait until someone asks
for it. Right now, we have a reason to add PIDFD_SIGNAL_PROCESS_GROUP
because of Andy's use-case. If someone has a use-case for session groups
then yes. Otherwise I'd just not bother?