On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:35:39PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:22:20PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > So while the patch is correct it leaves 5.6 and 5.7 with a bug in the
> > pidfd_getfd() implementation and that just doesn't seem right. I'm
> > wondering whether we s
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:22:20PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> So while the patch is correct it leaves 5.6 and 5.7 with a bug in the
> pidfd_getfd() implementation and that just doesn't seem right. I'm
> wondering whether we should introduce:
>
> void sock_update(struct file *file)
> {
>
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:22:20PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 01:17:17PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > The sock counting (sock_update_netprioidx() and sock_update_classid()) was
> > missing from pidfd's implementation of received fd installation. Replace
> > the open-co
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 01:17:17PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> The sock counting (sock_update_netprioidx() and sock_update_classid()) was
> missing from pidfd's implementation of received fd installation. Replace
> the open-coded version with a call to the new receive_fd()
> helper.
>
> Thanks to Va
The sock counting (sock_update_netprioidx() and sock_update_classid()) was
missing from pidfd's implementation of received fd installation. Replace
the open-coded version with a call to the new receive_fd()
helper.
Thanks to Vamshi K Sthambamkadi for
catching a missed fput() in an earlier version
