linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect PIDFD

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: <20240208-klopapier-aushebeln-446ac80a6e9b@brauner>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:33:39 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, 
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect PIDFD_THREAD

> Is prepare_kill_siginfo() correct when we send a signal to the child
> pid namespace? si_pid = task_tgid_vnr(current) doesn't look right in
> this case but perhaps I am totally confused.
> 
> And why do we need it at all? Can't sys_kill() and pidfd_send_signal()
> just use SEND_SIG_NOINFO?

Yeah, good point. I don't remember as it's been quite a while ago. My
guess is that it just tried to mirror kill() itself without being aware
of SEND_SIG_NOINFO. If you don't find anything wrong with this then
switch it to SEND_SIG_NOINFO in a preparatory patch we can backport,
please.