Re: [PATCH] copy_process(): Move fd_install() out of sighand->siglock critical section

[Waiman Long]

On 2/8/22 13:16, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 11:39:12AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> > One way to solve this problem is to move the fd_install() call out of
> > the sighand->siglock critical section.
> >
> > Before commit 6fd2fe494b17 ("copy_process(): don't use ksys_close()
> > on cleanups"), the pidfd installation was done without holding both
> > the task_list lock and the sighand->siglock. Obviously, holding these
> > two locks are not really needed to protect the fd_install() call.
> > So move the fd_install() call down to after the releases of both locks.
> 	Umm... That assumes we can delay it that far.  IOW, that nothing
> relies upon having pidfd observable in /proc/*/fd as soon as the child
> becomes visible there in the first place.
>
> 	What warranties are expected from CLONE_PIDFD wrt observation of
> child's descriptor table?
I think the fd_install() call can be moved after the release of 
sighand->siglock but before the release the tasklist_lock. Will that be 
good enough?

I am afraid that I am not knowledgeable enough to talk about the 
CLONE_PIDFD expectation. May other people chime in on this?

Cheers,
Longman