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  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, 20 Nov 2007 15:17:00 -0700
From: (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Ingo Molnar <>
Cc:	Pavel Emelyanov <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>, Pavel Machek <>,
	kernel list <>,
	netdev <>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc3: find complains about /proc/net

Ingo Molnar <> writes:

> * Eric W. Biederman <> wrote:
>> > lr-x------  1 root root 64 Nov 20 18:03 3 -> /proc/net
>> > ...
>> Yes all of those are nasty.  So much for my clever way of implementing 
>> these things.  Grr. Simple hacks that almost work!
> btw., in case you feel inclined, i recently did some userspace coding 
> and found to my surprise that /proc/self points to the parent task, not 
> the thread itself (giving threads no real way to examine themselves). If 
> you are hacking in this area, would it be a big trouble to add something 
> like /proc/self-task/ or something like that? I had to use a raw gettid 
> syscall to figure out the TID to get to /proc/*/tasks/TID/sched 
> instrumentation info - which is quite a PITA.

Agreed.  I have been debating with myself in the last couple of days
if it is a bug that /proc/self uses the tgid and not the actual pid/tid

If I can be convinced that posix threads don't care I will happily just
switch /proc/self, calling the current implementation a bug.

I think it is a bug the real question is what are the backwards
compatibility implications.  Do posix threads care?

It appears to me that either we need to fix /proc/self or we need
to add /proc/task-self and fix /proc/mounts to point at that.

In the normal case we share all of the same things so I think it is
a don't care.  Except that /proc/self/status | grep Pid returns the

Hmm.  I think I am just going to send Andrew a patch for 2.6.25 that
just fixes /proc/self.  I just fail to see how using the tgid is correct.
The only cases we could care seem to do the wrong thing when we use the

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists