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: <8736rebl9s.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 03 Dec 2018 17:57:51 +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

* Christian Brauner:

> Ok, I finally have access to source code again. Scratch what I said above!
> I looked at the code and tested it. If the process has exited but not
> yet waited upon aka is a zombie procfd_send_signal() will return 0. This
> is identical to kill(2) behavior. It should've been sort-of obvious
> since when a process is in zombie state /proc/<pid> will still be around
> which means that struct pid must still be around.

Should we make this state more accessible, by providing a different
error code?

Will the system call ever return ESRCH, given that you have a handle for
the process?

>> >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"?
> 
> Yes, the tg part can be implemented.

I meant on top of the existing interface.

> As I pointed out in another mail my I is to make this work by using
> file descriptors for /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>.  I don't want this in the
> initial patchset though.  I prefer to slowly add those features once
> we have gotten the basic functionality in.

Do you want to land all this in one kernel release?  I wonder how
applications are supposed to discover kernel support if functionality is
split across several kernel releases.  If you get EINVAL or EBADF, it
may not be obvious what is going on.

What happens if you use the new interface with an O_PATH descriptor?

Thanks,
Florian