linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix si_pid in send_signal() for SEND_SIG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081217015050.GA1850@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:50:50 -0800
From:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	roland@...hat.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, bastian@...di.eu.org,
	sukadev@...ibm.com, Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix si_pid in send_signal() for SEND_SIG_NOINFO

| > Ok. so should I change it to task_pid_nr_ns() ?
| 
| I don't know. I vote for your patch as is. (but please update
| the changelog).

Well, to keep the patch descriptions simple, how about I split the
two changes into two patches. First one masquerades ->si_pid with
task_pid_nr_ns() and second one uses task_tgid_nr_ns(). They
do look like unrelated changes.

| 
| > Would that still
| > be correct for say the SIGPIPE from pipe_write() ?
| 
| Again, I don't know.
| 
| But. Let's suppose we have the user-space application which
| uses .si_pid to figure out which thread hits SIGPIPE. Yes,
| this is ugly because the signal is thread-specific, but this
| works until this patch.

I have highlighted this and the the reparent-thread behavior
changes in the patch description.

| 
| Actually, I don't understand most of (all?) users of
| send_signal(SIGXXX, current, 0), SEND_SIG_PRIV looks more
| logical to me. Or, _perhaps_, we need yet another SEND_SIG_SELF
| which sets .si_pid = task_pid_vnr(target).

Ok. We have to change the __si_special() indirection or how about
removing it altogether and change uses of __si_special() to one of:

	{ SEND_SIG_NOINFO, SEND_SIG_PRIV, SEND_SIG_SELF, &info }

It would add a condition check in places like:

	disassociate_ctty(): kill_pgrp(old_pgrp, SIGHUP, on_exit);

but there aren't too many of those.
--
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/