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: <F9EBD99D-0339-4AD6-B89B-84F164454336@brauner.io>
Date:   Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:20:37 +1300
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
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 December 1, 2018 12:46:22 PM GMT+13:00, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>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?

Meaning, no compat syscalls, introduce 
new struct siginfo64_t and the copy 
function you named above?