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: <89a6b3a24412d385a816d7d981c60cb1e1bbc0ca.camel@bitron.ch>
Date:   Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:18:36 +0100
From:   Jürg Billeter <j@...ron.ch>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        luto@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        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, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: add taskfd_send_signal() syscall

On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 14:12 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jürg Billeter:
> 
> > On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 13:30 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Christian Brauner:
> > > 
> > > > /* zombies */
> > > > Zombies can be signaled just as any other process. No special error will be
> > > > reported since a zombie state is an unreliable state (cf. [3]).
> > > 
> > > I still disagree with this analysis.  If I know that the target process
> > > is still alive, and it is not, this is a persistent error condition
> > > which can be reliably reported.  Given that someone might send SIGKILL
> > > to the process behind my back, detecting this error condition could be
> > > useful.
> > 
> > As I understand it, kill() behaves the same way. I think it's good that
> > this new syscall keeps the behavior as close as possible to kill().
> 
> No, kill does not behave in this way because the PID can be reused.
> The error condition is not stable there.

The PID can't be reused as long as it's a zombie. It can only be reused
when it has been wait()ed for. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Jürg