linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exit: PR_SET_ANCHOR for marking processes as reapers for child processes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:05:11 +0000
From:	Scott James Remnant <scott@...split.com>
To:	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: PR_SET_ANCHOR for marking processes as reapers for
 child processes

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Lennart Poettering
<mzxreary@...inter.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 20.12.10 14:26, Scott James Remnant (scott@...split.com) wrote:
>
>> > This patch adds a simple flag for each process that marks it as an
>> > "anchor" process for all its children and grandchildren. If a child of
>> > such an anchor dies all its children will not be reparented to init, but
>> > instead to this anchor, escaping this anchor process is not possible. A
>> > task with this flag set hence acts is little "sub-init".
>> >
>> Why can't you simply begin a new pid namespace with the session
>> manager or other process supervisor?  That way the session
>> manager/process supervisor is for all intents and purposes an init
>> daemon, so shouldn't be surprised about getting SIGCHLD.
>
> PID namespaces primarily provide an independent PID numbering scheme for
> a subset of processes, i.e. so that identical may PIDs refer to different
> processes depending on the namespace they are running in. As a side
> effect this also provides init-like behaviour for processes that aren't
> the original PID 1 of the operating system. For systemd we are only
> interested in this side effect, but are not interested at all in the
> renumbering of processes, and in fact would even really dislike if it
> happened. That's why PR_SET_ANCHOR is useful: it gives us init-like
> behaviour without renaming all processes.
>
Right, but I don't get why you need this behavior to supervise either
system or user processes.  You already get all the functionality you
need to track processes via either cgroups or the proc connector (or a
combination of both).

So is this really just about making ps look pretty, as Kay says?

Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/