[RFC PATCH] fs/pidfs: Add permission check to pidfd_info()

[Christian Brauner]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 02:43:21PM -0500, Daniel Durning wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 9:01 AM Christian Brauner <brauner at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 06:02:48PM +0000, danieldurning.work at gmail.com wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Durning <danieldurning.work at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Added a permission check to pidfd_info(). Originally, process info
> > > could be retrieved with a pidfd even if proc was mounted with hidepid
> > > enabled, allowing pidfds to be used to bypass those protections. We
> > > now call ptrace_may_access() to perform some DAC checking as well
> > > as call the appropriate LSM hook.
> > >
> > > The downside to this approach is that there are now more restrictions
> > > on accessing this info from a pidfd than when just using proc (without
> > > hidepid). I am open to suggestions if anyone can think of a better way
> > > to handle this.
> >
> > This isn't really workable since this would regress userspace quite a
> > bit. I think we need a different approach. I've given it some thought
> > and everything's kinda ugly but this might work.
> >
> > In struct pid_namespace record whether anyone ever mounted a procfs
> > with hidepid turned on for this pidns. In pidfd_info() we check whether
> > hidepid was ever turned on. If it wasn't we're done and can just return
> > the info. This will be the common case. If hidepid was ever turned on
> > use kern_path("/proc") to lookup procfs. If not found check
> > ptrace_may_access() to decide whether to return the info or not. If
> > /proc is found check it's hidepid settings and make a decision based on
> > that.
> >
> > You can probably reorder this to call ptrace_may_access() first and then
> > do the procfs lookup dance. Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. I think your solution makes sense.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems like systemd mounts procfs with hidepid enabled on
> boot for services with the ProtectProc option enabled. This means that
> procfs will always have been mounted with hidepid in the init pid namespace.
> Do you think it would be viable to record whether or not procfs was mounted
> with hidepid enabled in the mount namespace instead?

I guess we can see what it looks like.