Linux filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net>,
	Daan De Meyer <daan.j.demeyer@gmail.com>,
	Mike Yuan <me@yhndnzj.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/15] pidfs: allow to retrieve exit information
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 22:47:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250304214710.GF5756@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250304-wochen-gutgesinnt-53c0765c5e81@brauner>

On 03/04, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 06:34:56PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/04, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > >
> > > +	task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > > +	if (!task) {
> > > +		if (!(mask & PIDFD_INFO_EXIT))
> > > +			return -ESRCH;
> > > +
> > > +		if (!current_in_pidns(pid))
> > > +			return -ESRCH;
> >
> > Damn ;) could you explain the current_in_pidns() check to me ?
> > I am puzzled...
>
> So we currently restrict interactions with pidfd by pid namespace
> hierarchy. Meaning that we ensure that the pidfd is part of the caller's
> pid namespace hierarchy.

Well this is clear... but sorry I still can't understand.

Why do we check current_in_pidns() only if get_pid_task(PIDTYPE_PID)
returns NULL?

And, unless (quite possibly) I am totally confused, if task != NULL
but current_in_pidns() would return false, then

	kinfo.pid = task_pid_vnr(task);

below will set kinfo.pid = 0, and pidfd_info() will return -ESRCH anyway?

> So this check is similar to:
>
> pid_t pid_nr_ns(struct pid *pid, struct pid_namespace *ns)
> {
>         struct upid *upid;
>         pid_t nr = 0;
>
>         if (pid && ns->level <= pid->level) {
>                 upid = &pid->numbers[ns->level];
>                 if (upid->ns == ns)
>                         nr = upid->nr;
>         }
>         return nr;
> }
>
> Only that by the time we perform this check the pid numbers have already
> been freed so we can't use that function directly.

Confused again... Yes, the [u]pid numbers can be already "freed" in that
upid->nr can be already idr_remove()'ed, but

> But the pid namespace
> hierarchy is still alive as that won't be released until the pidfd has
> put the reference on struct @pid.

Yes, so I still don't undestand, sorry :/

IOW. Why not check current_in_pidns() at the start? and do
task = get_pid_task() later, right before

	if (!task)
		goto copy_out;

?

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2025-03-04 21:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-04  9:41 [PATCH v2 00/15] pidfs: provide information after task has been reaped Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 01/15] pidfs: switch to copy_struct_to_user() Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 12:42   ` Jeff Layton
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 02/15] pidfd: rely on automatic cleanup in __pidfd_prepare() Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 12:44   ` Jeff Layton
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 03/15] pidfs: move setting flags into pidfs_alloc_file() Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 12:53   ` Jeff Layton
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 04/15] pidfs: add inode allocation Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 13:06   ` Jeff Layton
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 05/15] pidfs: record exit code and cgroupid at exit Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 13:05   ` Jeff Layton
2025-03-04 13:10   ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-04 19:10     ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 06/15] pidfs: allow to retrieve exit information Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 13:27   ` Jeff Layton
2025-03-04 17:23     ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 17:22   ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-04 20:16     ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 17:34   ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-04 20:09     ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 21:47       ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-03-05  8:54         ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 07/15] selftests/pidfd: fix header inclusion Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 08/15] pidfs/selftests: ensure correct headers for ioctl handling Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 09/15] selftests/pidfd: move more defines to common header Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 10/15] selftests/pidfd: add first PIDFD_INFO_EXIT selftest Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 11/15] selftests/pidfd: add second " Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 12/15] selftests/pidfd: add third " Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 13/15] selftests/pidfd: add fourth " Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 14/15] selftests/pidfd: add fifth " Christian Brauner
2025-03-04  9:41 ` [PATCH v2 15/15] selftests/pidfd: add sixth " Christian Brauner
2025-03-04 20:18   ` [PATCH v2 17/16] selftests/pidfd: test multi-threaded exec with PPIDFD_INFO_EXIT Christian Brauner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250304214710.GF5756@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=daan.j.demeyer@gmail.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=lennart@poettering.net \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=me@yhndnzj.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox