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;
Date:   Wed, 27 Mar 2019 21:59:23 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
To:     Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>
Cc:     jannh@google.com, khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru, luto@kernel.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, serge@hallyn.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        arnd@arndb.de, keescook@chromium.org, adobriyan@gmail.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, bl0pbl33p@gmail.com,
        ldv@altlinux.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com,
        nagarathnam.muthusamy@oracle.com, cyphar@cyphar.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, joel@joelfernandes.org, dancol@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] pid: add pidfd_open()
Message-ID: <20190327205922.ajkkylqft6tp5cf7@brauner.io>
References: <20190327162147.23198-1-christian@brauner.io>
 <20190327162147.23198-3-christian@brauner.io>
 <9254286c02dbe883c14e38ed2af0022d36b17355.camel@opteya.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9254286c02dbe883c14e38ed2af0022d36b17355.camel@opteya.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 mars 2019 à 17:21 +0100, Christian Brauner a écrit :
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/pid.c b/kernel/pid.c
> > index 20881598bdfa..c9e24e726aba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/pid.c
> > +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> > @@ -26,8 +26,10 @@
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pidfd_open, pid_t, pid, int, procfd, int, pidfd,
> > unsigned int,
> > +		flags)
> > +{
> > +	long fd = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (flags & ~(PIDFD_TO_PROCFD | PROCFD_TO_PIDFD))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (!flags) {
> > +		struct pid *pidfd_pid;
> > +
> > +		if (pid <= 0)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +		if (procfd != -1 || pidfd != -1)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +		rcu_read_lock();
> > +		pidfd_pid = get_pid(find_pid_ns(pid, task_active_pid_ns(current)));
> > +		rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > +		fd = pidfd_create_fd(pidfd_pid, O_CLOEXEC);
> > +		put_pid(pidfd_pid);
> > +	} else if (flags & PIDFD_TO_PROCFD) {
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +	} else if (flags & PROCFD_TO_PIDFD) {
> > +		if (flags & ~PROCFD_TO_PIDFD)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +		if (pid != -1)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +		if (pidfd >= 0)
> > 
> 
> I think it can be stricter with:
> 
>                 if (pidfd != -1)

Yes.

> 
> (and match the check done for flag == 0).
> 
> Regards.
> 
> -- 
> Yann Droneaud
> OPTEYA
> 
>