linux-kernel - Re: For review: pidfd_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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 23:53:17 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: For review: pidfd_send_signal(2) manual page

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:00:03PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Christian,
> 
> >>> If you're the parent of the process you can do this without CLONE_PIDFD:
> >>> pid = fork();
> >>> pidfd = pidfd_open();
> >>> ret = pidfd_send_signal(pidfd, 0, NULL, 0);
> >>> if (ret < 0 && errno == ESRCH)
> >>> 	/* pidfd refers to another, recycled process */
> >>
> >> Although there is still the race between the fork() and the
> >> pidfd_open(), right?
> > 
> > Actually no and my code is even too complex.
> > If you are the parent, and this is really a sequence that obeys the
> > ordering pidfd_open() before waiting:
> > 
> > pid = fork();
> > if (pid == 0)
> > 	exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
> > pidfd = pidfd_open(pid, 0);
> > waitid(pid, ...);
> > 
> > Then you are guaranteed that pidfd will refer to pid. No recycling can
> > happen since the process has not been waited upon yet (That is,
> 
> D'oh! Yes, of course. 
> 
> > excluding special cases such as where you have a mainloop where a
> > callback reacts to a SIGCHLD event and waits on the child behind your
> > back and your next callback in the mainloop calls pidfd_open() while the
> > pid has been recycled etc.).
> > A race could only appear in sequences where waiting happens before
> > pidfd_open():
> > 
> > pid = fork();
> > if (pid == 0)
> > 	exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
> > waitid(pid, ...);
> > pidfd = pidfd_open(pid, 0);
> > 
> > which honestly simply doesn't make any sense. So if you're the parent
> > and you combine fork() + pidfd_open() correctly things should be fine
> > without even having to verify via pidfd_send_signal() (I missed that in
> > my first mail.).
> 
> Thanks for the additional detail.

You're very welcome.

> 
> I added the following to the pidfd_open() page, to
> prevent people making the same thinko as me:
> 
>        The following code sequence can be used to obtain a file  descrip‐
>        tor for the child of fork(2):
> 
>            pid = fork();
>            if (pid > 0) {     /* If parent */
>                pidfd = pidfd_open(pid, 0);
>                ...
>            }
> 
>        Even  if  the  child process has already terminated by the time of
>        the pidfd_open() call, the returned file descriptor is  guaranteed
>        to refer to the child because the parent has not yet waited on the
>        child (and therefore, the child's ID has not been recycled).

Thanks! I'm fine with the example. The code illustrates the basics. If
you want to go overboard, you can mention my callback example and put my
SIG_IGN code snippet from my earlier mails (cf. [1] and [2]) in there.
But imho, that'll complicate the manpage and I'm not sure it's worth it.

Thanks!
Christian

/* References */
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190924195701.7pw2olbviieqsg5q@wittgenstein
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190924200735.2dvqhan7ynnmfc7s@wittgenstein