linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: make signalfd work with io

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: <6243eb59-3340-deb5-d4b8-08501be01f34@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:20:18 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring: make signalfd work with io_uring (and aio)
 POLL

On 11/14/19 8:19 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 14/11/2019 16.09, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/14/19 7:12 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> 
>>> So, I can't really think of anybody that might be relying on inheriting
>>> a signalfd instead of just setting it up in the child, but changing the
>>> semantics of it now seems rather dangerous. Also, I _can_ imagine
>>> threads in a process sharing a signalfd (initial thread sets it up and
>>> blocks the signals, all threads subsequently use that same fd), and for
>>> that case it would be wrong for one thread to dequeue signals directed
>>> at the initial thread. Plus the lifetime problems.
>>
>> What if we just made it specific SFD_CLOEXEC?
> 
> O_CLOEXEC can be set and removed afterwards. Sure, we're far into
> "nobody does that" land, but having signalfd() have wildly different
> semantics based on whether it was initially created with O_CLOEXEC seems
> rather dubious.
> 
>   I don't want to break
>> existing applications, even if the use case is nonsensical, but it is
>> important to allow signalfd to be properly used with use cases that are
>> already in the kernel (aio with IOCB_CMD_POLL, io_uring with
>> IORING_OP_POLL_ADD). Alternatively, if need be, we could add a specific
>> SFD_ flag for this.
> 
> Yeah, if you want another signalfd flavour, adding it via a new SFD_
> flag seems the way to go. Though I can't imagine the resulting code
> would be very pretty.

Well, it's currently _broken_ for the listed in-kernel use cases, so
I think making it work is the first priority here.

-- 
Jens Axboe