linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd

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, 29 Nov 2018 13:28:15 +0100
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, jannh@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, cyphar@...har.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, dancol@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com,
        linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

Disclaimer: I'm looking at this patch because Christian requested it.
I'm not a kernel developer.

* Christian Brauner:

> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> index 3cf7b533b3d1..3f27ffd8ae87 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> @@ -398,3 +398,4 @@
>  384	i386	arch_prctl		sys_arch_prctl			__ia32_compat_sys_arch_prctl
>  385	i386	io_pgetevents		sys_io_pgetevents		__ia32_compat_sys_io_pgetevents
>  386	i386	rseq			sys_rseq			__ia32_sys_rseq
> +387	i386	procfd_signal		sys_procfd_signal		__ia32_compat_sys_procfd_signal
> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> index f0b1709a5ffb..8a30cde82450 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@
>  332	common	statx			__x64_sys_statx
>  333	common	io_pgetevents		__x64_sys_io_pgetevents
>  334	common	rseq			__x64_sys_rseq
> +335	64	procfd_signal		__x64_sys_procfd_signal
>  
>  #
>  # x32-specific system call numbers start at 512 to avoid cache impact
> @@ -386,3 +387,4 @@
>  545	x32	execveat		__x32_compat_sys_execveat/ptregs
>  546	x32	preadv2			__x32_compat_sys_preadv64v2
>  547	x32	pwritev2		__x32_compat_sys_pwritev64v2
> +548	x32	procfd_signal		__x32_compat_sys_procfd_signal

Is there a reason why these numbers have to be different?

(See the recent discussion with Andy Lutomirski.)

> +static int do_procfd_signal(int fd, int sig, kernel_siginfo_t *kinfo, int flags,
> +			    bool had_siginfo)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	struct fd f;
> +	struct pid *pid;
> +
> +	/* Enforce flags be set to 0 until we add an extension. */
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	f = fdget_raw(fd);
> +	if (!f.file)
> +		return -EBADF;
> +
> +	/* Is this a process file descriptor? */
> +	ret = -EINVAL;
> +	if (!proc_is_tgid_procfd(f.file))
> +		goto err;
[…]
> +	ret = kill_pid_info(sig, kinfo, pid);

I would like to see some comment here what happens to zombie processes.

> +/**
> + *  sys_procfd_signal - send a signal to a process through a process file
> + *                      descriptor
> + *  @fd: the file descriptor of the process
> + *  @sig: signal to be sent
> + *  @info: the signal info
> + *  @flags: future flags to be passed
> + */
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(procfd_signal, int, fd, int, sig, siginfo_t __user *, info,
> +		int, flags)

Sorry, I'm quite unhappy with the name.  “signal” is for signal handler
management.  procfd_sendsignal, procfd_sigqueueinfo or something like
that would be fine.  Even procfd_kill would be better IMHO.

Looking at the rt_tgsigqueueinfo interface, is there a way to implement
the “tg” part with the current procfd_signal interface?  Would you use
openat to retrieve the Tgid: line from "status"?

Thanks,
Florian