Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date: 2018-11-20 02:09:17
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-man, lkml
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:33 AM Christian Brauner [off-list ref] wrote:
The kill() syscall operates on process identifiers. After a process has exited its pid can be reused by another process. If a caller sends a signal to a reused pid it will end up signaling the wrong process. This issue has often surfaced and there has been a push [1] to address this problem. A prior patch has introduced the ability to get a file descriptor referencing struct pid by opening /proc/<pid>. This guarantees a stable handle on a process which can be used to send signals to the referenced process. Discussion has shown that a dedicated syscall is preferable over ioctl()s. Thus, the new syscall procfd_signal() is introduced to solve this problem. It operates on a process file descriptor. The syscall takes an additional siginfo_t and flags argument. If siginfo_t is NULL then procfd_signal() behaves like kill() if it is not NULL it behaves like rt_sigqueueinfo. The flags argument is added to allow for future extensions of this syscall. It currently needs to be passed as 0.
A few questions. First: you've made this work on /proc/PID, but should it also work on /proc/PID/task/TID to send signals to a specific thread?
+bool proc_is_procfd(const struct file *file)
+{
+ return d_is_dir(file->f_path.dentry) &&
+ (file->f_op == &proc_tgid_base_operations);
+}Maybe rename to proc_is_tgid_procfd() to leave room for proc_is_tid_procfd()?
+ if (info) {
+ ret = __copy_siginfo_from_user(sig, &kinfo, info);
+ if (unlikely(ret))
+ goto err;
+ /*
+ * Not even root can pretend to send signals from the kernel.
+ * Nor can they impersonate a kill()/tgkill(), which adds
+ * source info.
+ */
+ ret = -EPERM;
+ if ((kinfo.si_code >= 0 || kinfo.si_code == SI_TKILL) &&
+ (task_pid(current) != pid))
+ goto err;Is the exception for signaling yourself actually useful here?