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: <CAEXW_YQxWcQGZHrwhwsyu7GCk+WSap=tb0-asTsG8sTFmjE--g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:24:00 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        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 Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com> wrote:
> 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.

Excited to see this and please count me in for discussions around this. thanks.

 - Joel