linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] pid: Optional first-fit pid allocation

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: <ajz3vdl7yqu6a7dtl6dpqm2ea6wfac2jovbx5zl54dw2g2a4ab@tgs4gq5hyim4>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:09:41 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, 
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pid: Optional first-fit pid allocation

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 09:59:13AM +0100, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this approach. This is way worse then making
> pid_max per pid namespace.

Thanks for taking the look.

> I'm fine if you come up with something else that's purely based on
> cgroups somehow and is uniform across 64-bit and 32-bit. Allowing to
> change the pid allocation strategy just for 32-bit is not the solution
> and not mergable.

Here's a minimalist correction
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250305145849.55491-1-mkoutny@suse.com/


Michal

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)