Re: [PATCH] pid: allow pidfds for reaped tasks

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/14, David Rheinsberg wrote:
>
> Hi Oleg,
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, at 1:57 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> What code do we need to allow userspace to open a pidfd to a leader pid
> >> even if it has already been exited and reaped (without also accidently
> >> allowing to open non-lead pid pidfds)?
> >
> > I'll try to think more, but can you also explain why do we need this?
> >
> > See my another email. Can't we simply shift the pid_has_task(PIDTYPE_TGID)
> > check from pidfd_prepare() to pidfd_create() ? (and then we can kill
> > pidfd_prepare and rename __pidfd_prepare to pidfd_prepare).
>
> Yes, the easiest solution would be to use `__pidfd_prepare()` and ensure
> that the caller only ever calls this on tg-leaders. This would work just
> fine, imo. And this was my initial approach.

Great,

> I think Christian preferred an explicit assertion that ensures we do not
> accidentally hand out pidfds for non-tg-leaders. The question is thus whether
> there is an easy way to assert this even for reaped tasks?
> Or whether there is a simple way to flag a pid that was used as tg-leader?

I do not see how can we check if a detached pid was a leader pid, and I don't
think it makes sense to add a new member into struct pid...

> Or, ultimately, whether this has limited use and we should just use
> `__pidfd_prepare()`?

Well, if you confirm that sk->sk_peer_pid and scm->pid are always initialized with
task_tgid(current), I'd certainly prefer this approach unless Christian objects.

Oleg.