linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] KVM changes for Linux 6.14

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: <20250127140947.GA22160@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:09:48 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM changes for Linux 6.14

On 01/26, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 at 10:54, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we even need to detect the /proc/self/ or /proc/self-thread/
> > case, next_tid() can just check same_thread_group,
>
> That was my thinking yes.
>
> If we exclude them from /proc/*/task entirely, I'd worry that it would
> hide it from some management tool and be used for nefarious purposes

Agreed,

> (even if they then show up elsewhere that the tool wouldn't look at).

Even if we move them from /proc/*/task to /proc ?

Perhaps, I honestly do not know what will/can confuse userspace more.

> But as mentioned, maybe this is all more of a hack than what kvm now does.

I don't know. But I will be happy to make a patch if we have a consensus.

Oleg.