linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send

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: <20181206222746.GB9224@mail.hallyn.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:27:46 -0600
From:   "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "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-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:30:40AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> > I feel changing the name around by a single persons preferences is not
> > really a nice thing to do community-wise. So I'd like to hear other
> > people chime in first before I make that change.
> 
> I don't think the name is hugely critical (but it's always the hardest
> to settle on). My preference order would be:
> 
> taskfd_send_signal()
> pidfd_send_signal()
> procfd_send_signal()
> fd_send_signal()

imo, either procfd_send_signal() or taskfd_send_signal()

It seems to me that using flags later to specify sending to pgrp vs thread
is fine:  it's specifying how to interpret the 'fd' in 'procfd_send_signal()'.

> But, agreed, I think fdkill() should not be used.
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook