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: <CALCETrWcUQC_aeHRwVF0yr8GATndRU9277rQQ+caOcR1uJ1W9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:46:22 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        LKML <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>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:40 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
>
> 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.

Creating and using a copy_siginfo_from_user64() function would work
for everyone, no?