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: <20200110213433.94739-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20200110213433.94739-3-minchan@kernel.org>
 <56ea0927-ad2e-3fbd-3366-3813330f6cec@virtuozzo.com> <20200113104256.5ujbplyec2sk4onn@wittgenstein>
 <20200113184408.GD110363@google.com> <20200113191046.2tidyvc544zvchek@wittgenstein>
In-Reply-To: <20200113191046.2tidyvc544zvchek@wittgenstein>
From:   Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:27:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKOZuev5k3EquMd-6VbvruahjjtxQzRhUVo2ttgVyk+yYz9aOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: introduce external memory hinting API
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, oleksandr@redhat.com,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@google.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        John Dias <joaodias@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:10 AM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> This does not
> affect the permission checking you're performing here.

Pidfds-as-capabilities sounds like a good change. Can you clarify what
you mean here though? Do you mean that in order to perform some
process-directed operation X on process Y, the pidfd passed to X must
have been opened with PIDFD_CAP_X *and* the process *using* the pidfds
must be able to perform operation X on process Y? Or do pidfds in this
model "carry" permissions in the same way that an ordinary file
descriptor "carries" the ability to write to a file if it was opened
with O_WRONLY even if the FD is passed to a process that couldn't
otherwise write to that file? Right now, pidfds are identity-only and
always rely on the caller's permissions. I like the capability bit
model because it makes pidfds more consistent with other file
descriptors and enabled delegation of capabilities across the system.