linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] fcntl: F_[SG]ETOWN

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20090731205246.GA3457@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:52:46 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	eranian@...il.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
	Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
	Corey J Ashford <cjashfor@...ibm.com>,
	Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
	Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
	perfmon2-devel <perfmon2-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	roland <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fcntl: F_[SG]ETOWN_TID

On 07/31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> In order to direct the SIGIO signal to a particular thread of a
> multi-threaded application we cannot, like suggested by the manpage, put
> a TID into the regular fcntl(F_SETOWN) call. It will still be send to
> the whole process of which that thread is part.
>
> Since people do want to properly direct SIGIO we introduce F_SETOWN_TID,
> which functions similarly to F_SETOWN, except positive arguments are
> interpreted as TIDs and negative arguments are interpreted as PIDs.

I think this is correct. But,

> @@ -431,6 +474,7 @@ static void send_sigio_to_task(struct task_struct *p,
>  			       int fd,
>  			       int reason)
>  {
> +	int (*send_sig)(int, struct siginfo *, struct task_struct *);
>  	/*
>  	 * F_SETSIG can change ->signum lockless in parallel, make
>  	 * sure we read it once and use the same value throughout.
> @@ -440,6 +484,8 @@ static void send_sigio_to_task(struct task_struct *p,
>  	if (!sigio_perm(p, fown, signum))
>  		return;
>
> +	send_sig = fown->task_only ? send_sig_info : group_send_sig_info;

this is ugly.

I do not blame your patch, I blame signal.c which has a lot of helpers
to send a signal but it is never possible to find the right one.

I think we need a new trivial helper,

	int xxx(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *p, bool group)
	{
		unsigned long flags;
		int ret = -ESRCH;

		if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
			ret = send_signal(sig, info, p, group);
			unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
		}

		return ret;
	}

send_sigio_to_task() can just do: send_signal(..., !fown->task_only).

group_send_sig_info(), send_sig_info() should use this helper too.


Also. without the new helper, F_SETOWN does check_kill_permission()
while F_SETOWN_TID does not. This doesn't really matter, but this
looks a bit odd.

Note that send_sigio_to_task() does not need check_kill_permission().
We use either SEND_SIG_PRIV or SI_FROMKERNEL() signals, so we never
actually check permissions. Even if we did, it would be just wrong
to deny the signal here using current_cred().


Peter, may I suggest to to re-diff your patch on top of the trivial
patch I am going to send a bit later today?

Oleg.

--
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/