linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement /proc/pid/kill

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: <20181031025655.yz7lfhswk7igb3ty@yavin>
Date:   Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:56:55 +1100
From:   Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>
Cc:     Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement /proc/pid/kill

On 2018-10-31, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com> wrote:
> > I think Aleksa's larger point is that it's useful to treat processes
> > as other file-descriptor-named, poll-able, wait-able resources.
> > Consistency is important. A process is just another system resource,
> > and like any other system resource, you should be open to hold a file
> > descriptor to it and do things to that process via that file
> > descriptor. The precise form of this process-handle FD is up for
> > debate. The existing /proc/$PID directory FD is a good candidate for a
> > process handle FD, since it does almost all of what's needed. But
> > regardless of what form a process handle FD takes, we need it. I don't
> > see a case for continuing to treat processes in a non-unixy,
> > non-file-descriptor-based manner.
> 
> That's what I'm proposing in the API for which I'm gathering feedback.
> I have presented parts of this in various discussions at LSS Europe last week
> and will be at LPC.
> We don't want to rush an API like this though. It was tried before in
> other forms
> and these proposals didn't make it.

:+1: on a well thought-out and generic proposal. As we've discussed
elsewhere, this is an issue that really would be great to (finally)
solve.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)