linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal: don't silently convert SI

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: <20190417135002.GF32622@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:50:03 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: don't silently convert SI_USER signals to
 non-current pidfd

On 04/17, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 03:16:03PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/17, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 03:13:16PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > but perhaps it should always fail, even if task_pid(current) == pid.
> > > >
> > > > sys_rt_sigqueueinfo() allows to send any siginfo to yourself, but this is only needed
> > > > for checkpoint/restart.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's why this was added. I would leave it in exactly because of
> > > checkpoint/restart.
> >
> > I don't understand...
> >
> > c/r doesn't need this "feature" in pidfd_send_signal(), so it can be removed.
> > But,
>
> Just out of curiosity: in what sense? They don't need it since they have
> other ways of doing this

Yes. The restarting process needs to "restore" the pending signals, including the
signals with si_code >= 0. It does this using tgsigqueueinfo() and that is why we
allow this if the signal sent to itself.

So criu simply doesn't need pidfd_send_signal() to do this. And at the same time,

> or they *can't* use it for some other reason

Yes again. pidfd_send_signal() does kill_pid_info(), so it can't be used to restore
the "per-thread" task->pending signals.

Oleg.