linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] waitid(2): leave copyout of siginfo to syscall itself

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: <20170515234633.GN390@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 00:46:33 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] waitid(2): leave copyout of siginfo to syscall itself

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 04:06:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > +struct waitid_info {
> > +       pid_t pid;
> > +       uid_t uid;
> > +       int status;
> > +       int why;
> > +};
> 
> Ugh. Could we please just name those with what they are actually used for?
> 
> Even if you hate the "si_" previx for some reason, I really don't see
> why we'd continue call it "why", when it's written to "si_code"
> 
> Yes, yes, I see the historical reason, and how "si_code" is just the
> low 16 bits of "why", and the high 16 bits is something else.

__SI_CHLD, and AFAICS it only matters for copy_siginfo_to_user() and its
relatives - basically, "how much of kernel-side struct siginfo do we have
initialized"...

> But now that there is a structure for that, could we not just make
> that explicit in the structure instead? Those games with "why" look
> really odd.

OK...

> So I can see why you'd like to keep this patch as "minimal
> conversion", but it would be really nice to have a followup patch that
> gets rid of the odd "why" games.

The thing is, we lack convenient defines for those constants.  We could
turn this "why" thing into u16 si_code, but then gcc will scream about
integer constant truncation ;-/  Suggestions?

BTW, I wonder if making those stores conditional is actually a win -
sure, for put_user() it used to be, but for plain stores...  Not sure.