Re: [PATCH 2/2] fanotify: Add pidfd support to the fanotify API
flat view
From: Christian Brauner <hidden>
Date: 2021-04-19 13:25:52
Also in:
linux-fsdevel
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:22:25AM +1000, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Introduce a new flag FAN_REPORT_PIDFD for fanotify_init(2) which allows userspace applications to control whether a pidfd is to be returned instead of a pid for `struct fanotify_event_metadata.pid`. FAN_REPORT_PIDFD is mutually exclusive with FAN_REPORT_TID as the pidfd API is currently restricted to only support pidfd generation for thread-group leaders. Attempting to set them both when calling fanotify_init(2) will result in -EINVAL being returned to the caller. As the pidfd API evolves and support is added for tids, this is something that could be relaxed in the future. If pidfd creation fails, the pid in struct fanotify_event_metadata is set to FAN_NOPIDFD(-1). Falling back and providing a pid instead of a pidfd on pidfd creation failures was considered, although this could possibly lead to confusion and unpredictability within userspace applications as distinguishing between whether an actual pidfd or pid was returned could be difficult, so it's best to be explicit. Signed-off-by: Matthew Bobrowski <redacted> --- fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- include/linux/fanotify.h | 2 +- include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c index 9e0c1afac8bd..fd8ae88796a8 100644 --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c@@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static ssize_t copy_event_to_user(struct fsnotify_group *group, struct fanotify_info *info = fanotify_event_info(event); unsigned int fid_mode = FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FANOTIFY_FID_BITS); struct file *f = NULL; - int ret, fd = FAN_NOFD; + int ret, pidfd, fd = FAN_NOFD; int info_type = 0; pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);@@ -340,7 +340,25 @@ static ssize_t copy_event_to_user(struct fsnotify_group *group, metadata.vers = FANOTIFY_METADATA_VERSION; metadata.reserved = 0; metadata.mask = event->mask & FANOTIFY_OUTGOING_EVENTS; - metadata.pid = pid_vnr(event->pid); + + if (FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FAN_REPORT_PIDFD) && + pid_has_task(event->pid, PIDTYPE_TGID)) { + /* + * Given FAN_REPORT_PIDFD is to be mutually exclusive with + * FAN_REPORT_TID, panic here if the mutual exclusion is ever + * blindly lifted without pidfds for threads actually being + * supported. + */ + WARN_ON(FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FAN_REPORT_TID)); + + pidfd = pidfd_create(event->pid, 0); + if (unlikely(pidfd < 0)) + metadata.pid = FAN_NOPIDFD; + else + metadata.pid = pidfd;
I'm not a fan of overloading fields (Yes, we did this for the _legacy_ clone() syscall for CLONE_PIDFD/CLONE_PARENT_SETTID but in general it's never a good idea if there are other options, imho.). Could/should we consider the possibility of adding a new pidfd field to struct fanotify_event_metadata? Christian