Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] clone: add CLONE_PIDFD

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 04/18, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:12:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Should we allow CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_PIDFD ?
>
> I think so, yes. I have thought about this.

OK, I won't insist. But let me explain why did I ask.

> Yes, due to CLONE_FILES |
> CLONE_VM you'd necessarily hand the pidfd to the child but threads are
> no security boundary in the first place.

No, no, I am not not worried about security. CLONE_PARENT | CLONE_PIDFD
looks more problematic to me, but I see nothing dangerous security-wise..

I agree that CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_PIDFD may be usefule, but I am not sure
we should allow this from the very begining, until we have a "real" use-case.

IIUC, we are going to make it pollable soon. OK, but proc_tgid_base_poll()
(which should be turned into pidfd_poll) simply can't work if pid_task() is
not a group leader. poll(pidfd) will hang forever if pidfd was created by
CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_PIDFD.

Sure, we can (should?) improve pidfd_poll() but this will need more nasty
changes in the core kernel code. Do we really need/want this? Right now it
is not clear to me. Instead, we can simply disallow CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PIDFD
until we decide that yes, we want to poll sub-threads.

But again, I am fine with CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_PIDFD.

Oleg.