linux-kernel - Re: For review: seccomp_user

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, 27 Oct 2020 07:14:03 +0100
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
        Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page

On 10/26/20 4:54 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 5:32 PM Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I tried applying the patch below to vanilla 5.9.0.
>> (There's one typo: s/ENOTCON/ENOTCONN).
>>
>> It seems not to work though; when I send a signal to my test
>> target process that is sleeping waiting for the notification
>> response, the process enters the uninterruptible D state.
>> Any thoughts?
> 
> Ah, yeah, I think I was completely misusing the wait API. I'll go change that.
> 
> (Btw, in general, for reports about hangs like that, it can be helpful
> to have the contents of /proc/$pid/stack. And for cases where CPUs are
> spinning, the relevant part from the output of the "L" sysrq, or
> something like that.)

Thanks for the tipcs!

> Also, I guess we can probably break this part of UAPI after all, since
> the only user of this interface seems to currently be completely
> broken in this case anyway? So I think we want the other
> implementation without the ->canceled_reqs logic after all.

Okay.

> I'm a bit on the fence now on whether non-blocking mode should use
> ENOTCONN or not... I guess if we returned ENOENT even when there are
> no more listeners, you'd have to disambiguate through the poll()
> revents, which would be kinda ugly?

I must confess, I'm not quite clear on which two cases you 
are trying to distinguish. Can you elaborate?

> I'll try to turn this into a proper patch submission...

Thank you!!

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/