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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:40:59 -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 09:24:00PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 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.
> 

Just a quick question, is there a track planned at LPC for discussing this
new proposal or topics around/related to the proposal?

If not, should that be planned?

- Joel