lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [22]   [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 Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 03:39:54PM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:32:39AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > +/**
> > + * sys_procfd_signal - send a signal to a process through a process file
> > + * descriptor
> > + * @fd: the file descriptor of the process
> > + * @sig: signal to be sent
> > + * @info: the signal info
> > + * @flags: future flags to be passed
> > + */
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(procfd_signal, int, fd, int, sig, siginfo_t __user *, info,
> > + int, flags)
> > +{
>
> Can I just register an objection here that I think using a syscall
> just for this is silly?
>
> My understanding is that the concern is that some code might do:
>
> unknown_fd = recv_fd();
> ioctl(unknown_fd, SOME_IOCTL, NULL); // where SOME_IOCTL == PROC_FD_KILL
> // whoops, unknown_fd was a procfd and we killed a task!

This could just be my own mental model, but for something like "kill a
task", an ioctl just seems wrong. Syscall seems more natural.

I'd ack either method.

-serge

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-22 08:48    [W:0.282 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site