[Devel] Re: process_group()

[Eric W. Biederman]

Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev at us.ibm.com> writes:

> We currently have:
>
> 	
> 	static inline pid_t process_group(struct task_struct *tsk)
> 	{
> 		return tsk->signal->pgrp;
> 	}
> and
>
> 	static inline struct pid *task_pgrp(struct task_struct *task)
> 	{
> 		return task->group_leader->pids[PIDTYPE_PGID].pid;
> 	}
>
> and we are replacing process_group() with task_pgrp() and eventually
> plan to remove process_group().
>
> But there are several places in the kernel where we interact with
> user space using a pid_t (obvious being sys_setpgid(), sys_getpgid()
> do_task_stat(), do_wait() etc).
>
> In all these places, process_group(p) would simply be replaced by
> pid_nr(task_pgrp(p)). Rather than do that same replacement in many
> places, can we keep the interface and change the implmenation to:
>
> 	static inline pid_t process_group(struct task_struct *tsk)
> 	{
> 		return pid_nr(task_pgrp(tsk));
> 	}
>
> i.e our ultimate goal is not really to remove process_group() but
> actually to remove the caching of pid_t in signal->pgrp right ?
>
> The above disussion is also valid for process_session()/task_session().

Close.  Our ultimate goal is to make it so that when you talk within
the kernel you use a struct pid not a pid_t value.  Attacking the
cached pid_t values is merely a way finding those places.

So fixing thing like the pid_t value passed as credentials in unix domain
sockets is a lot more important than fixing any use of process_session
that just goes to user space.

The reason it is important is because different processes may be in different
pid namespaces and raw pid_t values just won't make sense while struct pid
references are pid namespace independent.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers