From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8322CC33CA9 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:42:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BF324686 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:42:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 48BF324686 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ubuntu.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B127F8E0005; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A9BC58E0003; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:42:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 98B368E0005; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:42:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0183.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.183]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3158E0003 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:42:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 18033181AC9C6 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76373784732.17.coast48_181e1e1084551 X-HE-Tag: coast48_181e1e1084551 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3394 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by imf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ip5f5bd663.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([95.91.214.99] helo=wittgenstein) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ir6Xm-0004SH-UB; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:42:39 +0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 21:42:37 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Daniel Colascione Cc: Minchan Kim , Kirill Tkhai , Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm , Linux API , oleksandr@redhat.com, Suren Baghdasaryan , Tim Murray , Sandeep Patil , Sonny Rao , Brian Geffon , Johannes Weiner , Shakeel Butt , John Dias Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: introduce external memory hinting API Message-ID: <20200113204237.ew6nn4ohxu7auw3u@wittgenstein> References: <20200110213433.94739-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20200110213433.94739-3-minchan@kernel.org> <56ea0927-ad2e-3fbd-3366-3813330f6cec@virtuozzo.com> <20200113104256.5ujbplyec2sk4onn@wittgenstein> <20200113184408.GD110363@google.com> <20200113191046.2tidyvc544zvchek@wittgenstein> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:27:03AM -0800, Daniel Colascione wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:10 AM Christian Brauner > wrote: > > This does not > > affect the permission checking you're performing here. > > Pidfds-as-capabilities sounds like a good change. Can you clarify what > you mean here though? Do you mean that in order to perform some > process-directed operation X on process Y, the pidfd passed to X must > have been opened with PIDFD_CAP_X *and* the process *using* the pidfds > must be able to perform operation X on process Y? Or do pidfds in this > model "carry" permissions in the same way that an ordinary file > descriptor "carries" the ability to write to a file if it was opened > with O_WRONLY even if the FD is passed to a process that couldn't > otherwise write to that file? Right now, pidfds are identity-only and > always rely on the caller's permissions. I like the capability bit > model because it makes pidfds more consistent with other file > descriptors and enabled delegation of capabilities across the system. I'm going back and forth on this. My initial implementation has it that you'd need both, PIDFD_FLAG/CAP_X and the process using the pidfd must be able to perform the operation X on process Y. The alternative becomes tricky for e.g. anything that requires ptrace_may_access() permissions such as getting an fd out from another task based on its pidfd and so on. Christian