linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] vfs 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: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:05:06 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] vfs pidfd

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 02:14, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Move pidfds from the anonymous inode infrastructure to a tiny
>   pseudo filesystem. This will unblock further work that we weren't able
>   to do simply because of the very justified limitations of anonymous
>   inodes. Moving pidfds to a tiny pseudo filesystem allows for statx on
>   pidfds to become useful for the first time. They can now be compared
>   by inode number which are unique for the system lifetime.

So I obviously pulled this already, but I did have one question - we
don't make nsfs conditional, and I'm not convinced we should make
pidfs conditional either.

I think (and *hope*) all the semantic annoyances got sorted out, and I
don't think there are any realistic size advantages to not enabling
CONFIG_FS_PID.

Is there some fundamental reason for that config entry to exist?

            Linus