|
Message-ID: <YQNYs+BKenJHBMSP@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 01:41:07 +0000 From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> Cc: John Cotton Ericson <mail@...nericson.me>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com> Subject: Re: Leveraging pidfs for process creation without fork On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 04:24:15PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 12:37:57PM -0400, John Cotton Ericson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was excited to learn about about pidfds the other day, precisely in hopes > > that it would open the door to such a "sane process creation API". I > > searched the LKML, found this thread, and now hope to rekindle the > > discussion; my apologies if there has been more discussion since that I > > Yeah, I haven't forgotten this discussion. A proposal is on my todo list > for this year. So far I've scheduled some time to work on this in the > fall. Keep in mind that quite a few places in kernel/exit.c very much rely upon the lack of anything outside of thread group adding threads into it. Same for fs/exec.c.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.