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 [thread overview]
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-04 12:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-20 10:51 [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall 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
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).