linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] pidfs: implement file handle support

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: <20241113-geahndet-nullpunkt-e4ebe45d4d21@brauner>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:35:46 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Erin Shepherd <erin.shepherd@....eu>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, christian@...uner.io, 
	paul@...l-moore.com, bluca@...ian.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] pidfs: implement file handle support

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 11:43:13PM +0100, Erin Shepherd wrote:
> On 12/11/2024 14:57, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 14:10 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > We should really just move to storing 64-bit inode numbers internally
> > on 32-bit machines. That would at least make statx() give you all 64
> > bits on 32-bit host.
> 
> I think that would be ideal from the perspective of exposing it to
> userspace.
> It does leave the question of going back from inode to pidfd unsolved
> though.I like the name_to_handle_at/open_by_handle_at approach because

Indeed it doesn't solve it because it's possible that a given struct pid
never had a pidfd created for it and thus no inode actually does exist.
So when you're decoding a pidfs file handle you need to go to a struct
pid based on some property. The pid is fine for that and it is
equivalen to how pidfd_open() works.

> it neatly solves both sides of the problem with APIs we already have and
> understand
> 
> > Hmm... I guess pid namespaces don't have a convenient 64-bit ID like
> > mount namespaces do? In that case, stashing the pid from init_ns is
> > probably the next best thing.
> 
> Not that I could identify, no; so stashing the PID seemed like the most
> pragmatic
> approach.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure it should be a documented property of the file handle
> format; I
> somewhat think that everything after the PID inode should be opaque to
> userspace
> and subject to change in the future (to the point I considered xoring it
> with a
> magic constant to make it less obvious to userspace/make it more obvious
> that its
> not to be relied upon; but that to my knowledge is not something that
> the kernel
> has done elsewhere).
> 
> - Erin
>