From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] pid: add pidfd_open()
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:38:55 +0100
Message-ID: <20190330163854.t67m2h6m3hmshqtg@brauner.io>
References: <20190329155425.26059-1-christian@brauner.io>
 <CAHk-=wjq4dTPcz-qsvhpm5F42SDHCoqEWv1V=rs_kt6MC=ZThA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BCD99947-5F55-4116-8F74-D6832E50340B@brauner.io>
 <CAHk-=whcA0kAWGqet9oJdyttjhP7J4PcU2Ly=n_Qyo6rMJNxRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKOZuevv_QgvzmusA+yey76vo4hn9bEVwud2RumuOr0K4++15A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKOZuevv_QgvzmusA+yey76vo4hn9bEVwud2RumuOr0K4++15A@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, Jonathan Kowalski <bl0pbl33p@gmail.com>, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Nagarathnam
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:34:02AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:24 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:19 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > From pure API perspective that's all I care about: independence of procfs.
> > > Once we have pidfd_open() we can cleanly signal threads etc.
> >
> > But "independence from procfs" means that you damn well don't then do
> > "oh, now I have a pidfd, I want to turn it into a /proc fd and then
> > munge around there".
> >
> > So I'm literally saying that it had better really *be* independent
> > from /proc. It is the standalone version, but it's most definitely
> > also the version that doesn't then give you secret access to /proc.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not proposing granting secret access to procfs,
> and as far as I can see, nobody else is either. We've been talking
> about making it easier to avoid races when you happen to want a pidfd
> and a procfs fd that point to the same process, not granting access
> that you didn't have before. If you'd rather not connect procfs and
> pidfds, we can take this functionality off the table.

This is dead! Nothing like this will make it through this tree. I have
no intention of endangering pidfd_send_signal().

Christian