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]

Message-ID: <7C5B4CBD-6364-4DCE-9EFD-3657C67DACEB@brauner.io>
Date:   Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:37:57 +1300
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
CC:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, cyphar@...har.com,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

On December 1, 2018 12:12:53 PM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 12:05 AM Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:26 PM Christian Brauner
><christian@...uner.io> wrote:
>> > On December 1, 2018 11:09:58 AM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann
><arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > One humble point I would like to make is that what I care about
>most is a sensible way forward without having to redo essential parts
>of how syscalls work.
>> > I don't want to introduce a sane, small syscall that ends up
>breaking all over the place because we decided to fix past mistakes
>that technically have nothing to do with the patch itself.
>> > However, I do sympathize and understand these concerns.
>>
>> IMHO, it's fine to just replicate all the splits we have for the
>> existing signal system calls. It's ugly, but once it's done, it'll be
>> done for a long time. I can't see a need to add even more signal
>> system calls after this one.
>
>We definitely need waitid_time64() and rt_sigtimedwait_time64()
>in the very near future.

Right, I remember you pointing this out in a prior mail.
Thanks for working on this for such a long time now, Arnd!
Can we agree to move on with the procfd syscall given the current constraints?
I just don't want to see the syscall being 
blocked by a generic problem whose
ultimate solution is to get rid of weird
architectural constraints. :)