Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181119103241.5229-1-christian@brauner.io> <20181119103241.5229-2-christian@brauner.io>
In-Reply-To: <20181119103241.5229-2-christian@brauner.io>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 07:32:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrVvHu2dSJs1dpA-2ozGhZGxbGrnYbUuh98rkCdsz42rfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] proc: get process file descriptor from /proc/<pid>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:33 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> With this patch an open() call on /proc/<pid> will give userspace a handle
> to struct pid of the process associated with /proc/<pid>. This allows to
> maintain a stable handle on a process.
> I have been discussing various approaches extensively during technical
> conferences this year culminating in a long argument with Eric at Linux
> Plumbers. The general consensus was that having a handle on a process
> should be something that is very simple and easy to maintain with the
> option of being extensible via a more advanced api if the need arises. I
> believe that this patch is the most simple, dumb, and therefore
> maintainable solution.

How does the mechanism you're adding here differ from proc_pid()?