From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: make proc_fd_permission() thread-friendly Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:35:26 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20130822201530.GL31117@1wt.eu> <20130824182939.GA23630@redhat.com> <20130824212432.GA9299@1wt.eu> <20130825052317.GZ27005@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20130825065039.GB9299@1wt.eu> <20130825194844.GA16717@redhat.com> <20130826153301.GA15890@redhat.com> <20130826163704.GA21763@redhat.com> <20130826175441.GA28856@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Andrew Morton , Willy Tarreau , Al Viro , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS Devel , Brad Spengler , "Eric W. Biederman" To: Oleg Nesterov Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Patch looks ok to me, but since this has never worked and nobody has > actually complained, I can't really convince myself that this is > critical. Actually, let's back-track.. Did you try the other approach? Make /proc/self point to the thread instead of the task? The thread-group leader seems to have these extra files: - autogroup, coredump_filter, mountstats, net, task but quite frankly, at least "net" and "task" look like they should exist there - with "task" pointing back to the actual task (it would make more sense for "/proc//task" itself to be named "threads", but whatever). Yes, it would be semantically different, but it would mean that "/proc/self/fd/" would actually make sense in a way that it currently does *not* - which would seem fairly important, since the primary use for it tends to be /dev/stdin. And the other semantic differences might be much harder to notice. Worth testing? Linus