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: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:23:55 -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 Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 07:16, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> No, the size of struct pid was the main reason but I don't think it
> matters. A side-effect was that we could easily enforce 64bit inode
> numbers. But realistically it's trivial enough to workaround. Here's a
> patch for what I think is pretty simple appended. Does that work?

This looks eminently sane to me. Not that I actually _tested_it, but
since my testing would have compared it to my current setup (64-bit
and CONFIG_FS_PID=y) any testing would have been pointless because
that case didn't change.

Looking at the patch, I do wonder how much we even care about 64-bit
inodes. I'd like to point out how 'path_from_stashed()' only takes a
'unsigned long ino' anyway, and I don't think anything really cares
about either the high bits *or* the uniqueness of that inode number..

And similarly, i_ino isn't actually *used* for anything but naming to
user space.

So I'm not at all sure the whole 64-bit checks are worth it. Am I
missing something else?

                Linus