Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-55556-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:25:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	Tycho Andersen <tandersen@netflix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pidfd: getfd should always report ESRCH if a task is
 exiting
Message-ID: <20240206192553.GC3593@redhat.com>
References: <20240206164308.62620-1-tycho@tycho.pizza>
 <20240206173722.GA3593@redhat.com>
 <20240206180607.GB3593@redhat.com>
 <ZcJ13uLxD6rTqqZZ@tycho.pizza>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZcJ13uLxD6rTqqZZ@tycho.pizza>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 02/06, Tycho Andersen wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 07:06:07PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Or we can check task->files != NULL rather than PF_EXITING.
> >
> > To me this looks even better, but looks more confusing without a comment.
> > OTOH, imo this needs a comment anyway ;)
>
> I thought about this, but I didn't really understand the null check in
> exit_files();

I guess task->files can be NULL at least if it was cloned with
kernel_clone_args->no_files == T

> if it can really be called more than once,

I don't think this is possible. Well, unless the exiting task hits
a BUG() after exit_files() and calls do_exit() recursively.

> are there
> other cases where task->files == NULL that we really should report
> EBADF?

I don't think so...

If nothing else, sys_close() dereferences current->files without any
checks, so I think task->files == NULL is simply impossible if this
task is a userspace process/thread until it exits.

But Tycho, I won't insist. If you prefer to check PF_EXITING, I am fine.

Oleg.