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: <20181206231742.xxi4ghn24z4h2qki@brauner.io>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 00:17:45 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        luto@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, serge@...lyn.com, jannh@...gle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com, cyphar@...har.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        dancol@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, fweimer@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:39:48PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:46:53PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> writes:
> > 
> > >> Your intention is to add the thread case to support pthreads once the
> > >> process case is sorted out.  So this is something that needs to be made
> > >> clear.  Did I miss how you plan to handle threads?
> > >
> > > Yeah, maybe you missed it in the commit message [2] which is based on a
> > > discussion with Andy [3] and Arnd [4]:
> > 
> > Looking at your references I haven't missed it.  You are not deciding
> > anything as of yet to keep it simple.  Except you are returning
> > EOPNOTSUPP.  You are very much intending to do something.
> 
> That was clear all along and was pointed at every occassion in the
> threads. I even went through the hazzle to give you all of the
> references when there's lore.kernel.org.
> 
> > 
> > Decide.  Do you use the flags parameter or is the width of the
> > target depending on the flags.

Ok, let's try to be constructive. I understand the general concern for
the future so let's put a contract into the commit message stating that
the width of the target aka *what is signaled* will be based on a flag
parameter if we ever extend it:

taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PGID);
taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_TID);

with the current default being

taskfd_send_signal(fd, SIGSTOP, NULL, TASKFD_PID);

This seems to me the cleanest solution as we only use one type of file
descriptor. Can everyone be on board with this? If so I'm going to send
out a new version of the patch.

Christian