From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: For review: pidfd_send_signal(2) manual page
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 22:07:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190924200735.2dvqhan7ynnmfc7s@wittgenstein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190924195701.7pw2olbviieqsg5q@wittgenstein>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:57:04PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 09:44:49PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > Hello Christian,
> >
> > On 9/23/19 4:23 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 01:26:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >> * Michael Kerrisk:
> > >>
> > >>> SYNOPSIS
> > >>> int pidfd_send_signal(int pidfd, int sig, siginfo_t info,
> > >>> unsigned int flags);
> > >>
> > >> This probably should reference a header for siginfo_t.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> ESRCH The target process does not exist.
> > >>
> > >> If the descriptor is valid, does this mean the process has been waited
> > >> for? Maybe this can be made more explicit.
> > >
> > > If by valid you mean "refers to a process/thread-group leader" aka is a
> > > pidfd then yes: Getting ESRCH means that the process has exited and has
> > > already been waited upon.
> > > If it had only exited but not waited upon aka is a zombie, then sending
> > > a signal will just work because that's currently how sending signals to
> > > zombies works, i.e. if you only send a signal and don't do any
> > > additional checks you won't notice a difference between a process being
> > > alive and a process being a zombie. The userspace visible behavior in
> > > terms of signaling them is identical.
> >
> > (Thanks for the clarification. I added the text "(i.e., it has
> > terminated and been waited on)" to the ESRCH error.)
> >
> > >>> The pidfd_send_signal() system call allows the avoidance of race
> > >>> conditions that occur when using traditional interfaces (such as
> > >>> kill(2)) to signal a process. The problem is that the traditional
> > >>> interfaces specify the target process via a process ID (PID), with
> > >>> the result that the sender may accidentally send a signal to the
> > >>> wrong process if the originally intended target process has termi‐
> > >>> nated and its PID has been recycled for another process. By con‐
> > >>> trast, a PID file descriptor is a stable reference to a specific
> > >>> process; if that process terminates, then the file descriptor
> > >>> ceases to be valid and the caller of pidfd_send_signal() is
> > >>> informed of this fact via an ESRCH error.
> > >>
> > >> It would be nice to explain somewhere how you can avoid the race using
> > >> a PID descriptor. Is there anything else besides CLONE_PIDFD?
> > >
> > > 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,
> 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.).
If we wanted to be super nitpicky one could also get in that situation
where you do:
signal(SIGCHLD,SIG_IGN);
// or
struct sigaction sa;
sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
sa.sa_flags = 0;
sigaction(SIGCHLD, &sa, 0)
pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
pidfd = pidfd_open();
because then the process gets autoreaped and can be recycled. But again,
that's just bad form and in that scenario one should again use
clone(CLONE_PIDFD) instead of fork().
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-24 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-23 9:12 For review: pidfd_send_signal(2) manual page Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-23 11:26 ` Florian Weimer
2019-09-23 14:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-24 19:44 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-24 19:57 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-24 20:07 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2019-09-24 21:00 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-24 21:08 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-09-25 13:46 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-24 21:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-25 13:46 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-25 13:51 ` Florian Weimer
2019-09-25 14:02 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-25 13:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-25 14:29 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-24 19:43 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-25 1:48 ` Jann Horn
2019-09-23 11:31 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-09-24 19:42 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-23 14:29 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-23 20:27 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2019-09-23 21:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-09-24 19:10 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190924200735.2dvqhan7ynnmfc7s@wittgenstein \
--to=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).