From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: make proc_fd_permission() thread-friendly Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:45:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20130827154513.GA27943@redhat.com> References: <20130825065039.GB9299@1wt.eu> <20130825194844.GA16717@redhat.com> <20130826153301.GA15890@redhat.com> <20130826163704.GA21763@redhat.com> <20130826175441.GA28856@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux FS Devel , "Eric W. Biederman" , Al Viro , Andrew Morton , Willy Tarreau , Brad Spengler , Ingo Molnar To: Andy Lutomirski Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 08/26, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2013 12:35 PM, "Linus Torvalds" > wrote: > > > > Yes, it would be semantically different, but it would mean that > > "/proc/self/fd/" would actually make sense in a way that it currently > > does *not* - which would seem fairly important, since the primary use > > for it tends to be /dev/stdin. > > > > And the other semantic differences might be much harder to notice. > > Worth testing? > > The "children" subdirectory will be different. But it's already screwed up. No, it lives in tid_base_stuff, it should be only visible in /proc/*/task/tid/ dir. (and perhaps it also makes sense to remove mem/exe-like things from tid_base_stuff...) Anyway I agree, this change is risky. Oleg.