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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240221-hocken-jagdbeute-695072475027@brauner>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:35:08 +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 Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 01:55:26PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/21, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:22:02PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > +       /* Currently unused. */
> > > > > > +       if (info)
> > > > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, to me this looks like the unnecessary restriction... And why?
> > > >
> > > > Because right now we aren't sure that it's used
> > >
> > > Yes, but...
> > >
> > > > and we aren't sure what use-cases are there.
> > >
> > > the same use-cases as for rt_sigqueueinfo() ?
> >
> > Specifically for pidfd_send_signal() I mean. To me it seems very
> > unlikely that anyone would be opening a pidfd to itself
> 
> Ah, with this, I do agree. And that is why (I think) we can remove
> the "task_pid(current) != pid" check in the "info != NULL" branch.

Ok, so let's try that. :)