lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:22:58AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> >
> > On November 30, 2018 5:54:18 AM GMT+13:00, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:28 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Disclaimer: I'm looking at this patch because Christian requested it.
> > >> I'm not a kernel developer.
> > >>
> > >> * Christian Brauner:
> > >>
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> > >b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> > >>> index 3cf7b533b3d1..3f27ffd8ae87 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> > >>> @@ -398,3 +398,4 @@
> > >>> 384 i386 arch_prctl sys_arch_prctl
> > >__ia32_compat_sys_arch_prctl
> > >>> 385 i386 io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents
> > >__ia32_compat_sys_io_pgetevents
> > >>> 386 i386 rseq sys_rseq __ia32_sys_rseq
> > >>> +387 i386 procfd_signal sys_procfd_signal
> > >__ia32_compat_sys_procfd_signal
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > >b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > >>> index f0b1709a5ffb..8a30cde82450 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> > >>> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@
> > >>> 332 common statx __x64_sys_statx
> > >>> 333 common io_pgetevents __x64_sys_io_pgetevents
> > >>> 334 common rseq __x64_sys_rseq
> > >>> +335 64 procfd_signal __x64_sys_procfd_signal
> > >>>
> > >>> #
> > >>> # x32-specific system call numbers start at 512 to avoid cache
> > >impact
> > >>> @@ -386,3 +387,4 @@
> > >>> 545 x32 execveat __x32_compat_sys_execveat/ptregs
> > >>> 546 x32 preadv2 __x32_compat_sys_preadv64v2
> > >>> 547 x32 pwritev2 __x32_compat_sys_pwritev64v2
> > >>> +548 x32 procfd_signal __x32_compat_sys_procfd_signal
> > >>
> > >> Is there a reason why these numbers have to be different?
> > >>
> > >> (See the recent discussion with Andy Lutomirski.)
> > >
> > >Hah, I missed this part of the patch. Let’s not add new x32 syscall
> > >numbers.
> > >
> > >Also, can we perhaps rework this a bit to get rid of the compat entry
> > >point? The easier way would be to check in_compat_syscall(). The nicer
> > >way IMO would be to use the 64-bit structure for 32-bit as well.
> >
> > Do you have a syscall which set precedence/did this before I could look at?
> > Just if you happen to remember one.
> > Fwiw, I followed the other signal syscalls.
> > They all introduce compat syscalls.
> >
>
> Not really.
>
> Let me try to explain. I have three issues with the approach in your patchset:
>
> 1. You're introducing a new syscall, and it behaves differently on
> 32-bit and 64-bit because the structure you pass in is different.
> This is necessary for old syscalls where compatibility matters, but
> maybe we can get rid of it for new syscalls. Could we define a
> siginfo64_t that is identical to the 64-bit siginfo_t and just use
> that in all cases?
>
> 2. Assuming that #1 doesn't work, then we need compat support. But
> you're doing it by having two different entry points. Instead, you
> could have a single entry point that calls in_compat_syscall() to
> decide which structure to read. This would simplify things because
> x86 doesn't really support the separate compat entry points, which
> leads me to #3.
>
> 3. The separate x32 numbers are a huge turd that may have security
> holes and certainly have comprehensibility holes. I will object to
> any patch that adds a new one (like yours). Fixing #1 or #2 makes
> this problem go away.
>
> Does that make any sense? The #2 fix would be something like:
>
> if (in_compat_syscall)
> copy...user32();
> else
> copy_from_user();
>
> The #1 fix would add a copy_siginfo_from_user64() or similar.

Thanks very much! That all helped a bunch already! I'll try to go the
copy_siginfo_from_user64() way first and see if I can make this work. If
we do this I would however only want to use it for the new syscall first
and not change all other signal syscalls over to it too. I'd rather keep
this patchset focussed and small and do such conversions caused by the
new approach later. Does that sound reasonable?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-29 20:57    [W:0.113 / U:6.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site