Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] pid: add pidfd_open()

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Mar 31, 2019, at 3:17 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 2:10 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think that we want or can make them equivalent since that would
>> mean we depend on procfs.
> 
> Sure we can.
> 
> If /proc is enabled, then you always do that dance YOU ALREADY WROTE
> THE CODE FOR to do the stupid ioctl.
> 
> And if /procfs isn't enabled, then you don't do that.
> 
> Ta-daa. Done. No stupid ioctl, and now /proc and pidfd_open() return
> the same damn thing.
> 
> And guess what? If /proc isn't enabled, then obviously pidfd_open()
> gives you the /proc-less thing, but at least there is no crazy "two
> different file descriptors for the same thing" situation, because then
> the /proc one doesn't exist.
> 

I wish we could do this, and, in a clean design, it would be a no-brainer.  But /proc has too much baggage.  Just to mention two such things, thereâs ânetâ and â../sysâ.  This crud is why we have all kinds of crazy rules that prevent programs in sandboxes from making a new mounts and mounting /proc in it.  If we make it possible to clone a new process and this access /proc without having /proc mounted, weâll open up a big can of worms.

Maybe we could have a sanitized view of /proc and make a pidfd be a directory fd pointing at that.