linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pid: Do not set pid

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: <nma6nbsdpu7qu7afdkrqzvyf5fxgw5x6vuzmeyncct4ertrgva@vw7ublyhbzxp>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:24:17 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, 
	Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, 
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pid: Do not set pid_max in new pid namespaces

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:11:27AM +0100, Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@...alicyn.com> wrote:
> This completely makes sense and I tend to agree.
> But we also need to
> ensure that the kselftest for pid_max is not broken with this change.

I built [1] and ran it with three passes. Assuming it didn't rely on the
copying.

> Let me play with this stuff a bit and I get back with "Tested-by" ;-)

I'd be happy for further validation.

Thanks,
Michal

[1] https://github.com/Werkov/linux/commit/019b884d5a005dd8a3e18f0865b276fc3d804d7e


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