lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 2/2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall
On 2018-11-19, Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> + 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;
> + } else {
> + prepare_kill_siginfo(sig, &kinfo);
> + }

I wonder whether we should also have a pidns restriction here, since
currently it isn't possible for a container process using a pidns to
signal processes outside its pidns. AFAICS, this isn't done through an
explicit check -- it's a side-effect of processes in a pidns not being
able to address non-descendant-pidns processes.

But maybe it's reasonable to allow sending a procfd to a different pidns
and the same operations working on it? If we extend the procfd API to
allow process creation this would allow a container to create a process
outside its pidns.

--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-19 21:30    [W:0.286 / U:25.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site