LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	serge@hallyn.com, jannh@google.com, luto@kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, cyphar@cyphar.com,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, dancol@google.com,
	timmurray@google.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 13:55:10 +0100
Message-ID: <874lbtjvtd.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181203180224.fkvw4kajtbvru2ku@brauner.io> (Christian Brauner's message of "Mon, 3 Dec 2018 19:02:29 +0100")

* Christian Brauner:

> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 05:57:51PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Christian Brauner:
>> 
>> > Ok, I finally have access to source code again. Scratch what I said above!
>> > I looked at the code and tested it. If the process has exited but not
>> > yet waited upon aka is a zombie procfd_send_signal() will return 0. This
>> > is identical to kill(2) behavior. It should've been sort-of obvious
>> > since when a process is in zombie state /proc/<pid> will still be around
>> > which means that struct pid must still be around.
>> 
>> Should we make this state more accessible, by providing a different
>> error code?
>
> No, I don't think we want that. Imho, It's not really helpful. Signals
> are still delivered to zombies. If zombie state were to always mean that
> no-one is going to wait on this thread anymore then it would make sense
> to me. But given that zombie can also mean that someone put a
> sleep(1000) right before their wait() call in the parent it seems odd to
> report back that it is a zombie.

It allows for error checking that the recipient of a signal is still
running.  It's obviously not reliable, but I think it could be helpful
in the context of closely cooperating processes.

>> Will the system call ever return ESRCH, given that you have a handle for
>> the process?
>
> Yes, whenever you signal a process that has already been waited upon:
> - get procfd handle referring to <proc>
> - <proc> exits and is waited upon
> - procfd_send_signal(procfd, ...) returns -1 with errno == ESRCH

I see, thanks.

>> Do you want to land all this in one kernel release?  I wonder how
>> applications are supposed to discover kernel support if functionality is
>> split across several kernel releases.  If you get EINVAL or EBADF, it
>> may not be obvious what is going on.
>
> Sigh, I get that but I really don't want to have to land this in one big
> chunk. I want this syscall to go in in a as soon as we can to fulfill
> the most basic need: having a way that guarantees us that we signal the
> process that we intended to signal.
>
> The thread case is easy to implement on top of it. But I suspect we will
> quibble about the exact semantics for a long time. Even now we have been
> on multiple - justified - detrous. That's all pefectly fine and
> expected. But if we have the basic functionality in we have time to do
> all of that. We might even land it in the same kernel release still. I
> really don't want to come of as tea-party-kernel-conservative here but I
> have time-and-time again seen that making something fancy and cover ever
> interesting feature in one patchset takes a very very long time.
>
> If you care about userspace being able to detect that case I can return
> EOPNOTSUPP when a tid descriptor is passed.

I suppose that's fine.  Or alternatively, when thread group support is
added, introduce a flag that applications have to use to enable it, so
that they can probe for support by checking support for the flag.

I wouldn't be opposed to a new system call like this either:

  int procfd_open (pid_t thread_group, pid_t thread_id, unsigned flags);

But I think this is frowned upon on the kernel side.

>> What happens if you use the new interface with an O_PATH descriptor?
>
> You get EINVAL. When an O_PATH file descriptor is created the kernel
> will set file->f_op = &empty_fops at which point the check I added 
>         if (!proc_is_tgid_procfd(f.file))
>                 goto err;
> will fail. Imho this is correct behavior since technically signaling a
> struct pid is the equivalent of writing to a file and hence doesn't
> purely operate on the file descriptor level.

Yes, that's quite reasonable.  Thanks.

Florian

  parent reply index

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-20 10:51 Christian Brauner
2018-11-20 10:51 ` [PATCH v2] procfd_signal.2: document procfd_signal syscall Christian Brauner
2018-11-22  8:00 ` [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall Serge E. Hallyn
2018-11-22  8:23 ` Aleksa Sarai
2018-11-28 14:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-29 12:28 ` Florian Weimer
2018-11-29 16:54   ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 19:16     ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-29 19:22       ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 19:55         ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-29 20:14           ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-29 21:02             ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-29 21:35               ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-29 21:40                 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-30  2:40                   ` Aleksa Sarai
2018-12-01  1:25                   ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-30  5:13               ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-11-30  6:56                 ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-30 11:41                   ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-30 16:35                     ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-11-30 21:57                       ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-30 22:09                       ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-30 22:26                         ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-30 23:05                           ` Daniel Colascione
2018-11-30 23:12                             ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-30 23:15                               ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-30 23:37                               ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-30 23:46                                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-01  1:20                                   ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-30 23:53                         ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-01  8:51                           ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-12-01  9:17                             ` Christian Brauner
2018-12-01 10:27                             ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-12-01 13:41                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-12-01 14:46                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-12-01 15:28                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-12-01 15:52                         ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-01 16:27                           ` Christian Brauner
2018-12-02  0:06                           ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-12-02  1:14                             ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-02  8:52                         ` Christian Brauner
2018-11-30 23:52   ` Christian Brauner
2018-12-02 10:03     ` Christian Brauner
2018-12-03 16:57       ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-03 18:02         ` Christian Brauner
2018-12-04  6:03           ` Aleksa Sarai
2018-12-04 12:55           ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2018-12-04 13:26             ` Christian Brauner
2018-12-06 18:54             ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-12-06 18:56               ` Florian Weimer
2018-12-06 19:03                 ` Christian Brauner
2018-12-25  5:32                   ` Lai Jiangshan
2018-12-25  7:11                     ` Lai Jiangshan
2018-12-25 12:07                       ` Aleksa Sarai

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=874lbtjvtd.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=christian@brauner.io \
    --cc=cyphar@cyphar.com \
    --cc=dancol@google.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=timmurray@google.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9 lkml/git/9.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git