linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6][v3] Container-init signal semantics

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]

Message-ID: <20081223021217.GA14957@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:12:17 -0800
From:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	oleg@...hat.com, roland@...hat.com, bastian@...di.eu.org,
	daniel@...ac.com, xemul@...nvz.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sukadev@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6][v3] Container-init signal semantics

Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@...ssion.com] wrote:
| I haven't dug in too deep but right now my concern are user space semantics,
| I don't want to wind up with something ugly there because we can not change
| it later.

The one restriction we are imposing is that SIGINT, SIGTERM etc will not
currently kill containter-inits. Only SIGKILL will.  But that is good point.
Maybe we should document that as a limitation we may remove in the future ? 
i.e. Its not a feature that container-inits should rely on.  Like sysV init,
container-init should still SIG_IGN all unhandled signals. If they don't,
they may break in the future.

| 
| So if we can write a description of what happens to signals to cinit
| that is right 100% of the time.  Something we can write a test case
| for that tests all of the corner cases and it always get the same
| results. I am happy.

Yes, I believe we can say that SIGKILL/SIGSTOP from parent are always
delivered and no fatal signal from same ns is.

| 
| I don't mind dropping signals early as an optimization, but if it
| is just an optimization we can't count on it in cinit.

Yes, you have a point. It started out as an optimization, but unwanted
signals are either ignored or dropped _always_ (or we have a bug).

| 
| So I would rather deliver less and make user space deal with it,
| then deliver more cause problems for user space.

The user-semantics appear to be clean now.
--
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/