Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp4352758imu; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:47:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XAOM/ghl83ra6V5cj0b6sWrW0n0q+w0/GRlLWDuF8gfyJrArCrHjBDYmBoQEP1htA10ipw X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:598e:: with SMTP id p14mr7455299pli.260.1543621672516; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:47:52 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1543621672; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=MO0nB8kGc/e48ziSkWv9LY4G3l6qt5wwj99X8YjB7m9Y+RpanhtVM62UVRA4RtmdG8 +/etbdSeeg5s5xK7JNgXTlsnYau/UyErU8PUK7mmUEY+jb8VNANnvzuPgdzwoDwDSo7F m5Cdtt76vdqqGgC2yTpXOTdfk4AAUyC+tSQEPGga9cnB6hBzkB9R+I9Fl6twgWENzJYL w2rH/Oe/Yp6AEDiVCCpyUItT0Kb9nOLSylDrvxYcCITvZn3WS07Z00Z8jOy0lJuXqvU+ ENDw2kj+iMj3YamU2IYwiQXsE4PlVN3xedYmvLXBkDrl+n3IjPswwG7v1jtX89UxCIjz 9wFA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=YXKGWjogybj0QGFdppQvo2L5E407T2U7e9VGAFRjA0U=; b=oz7BKhQK+6pV/IG7lKPRgMHOjgo0aPd9Ovdga13HE0N15suNAKYasZCxOwnizkCPM1 CD2pqDMSu372NShvra3kI5YVImMj2V8nPRPGx12EFxyEOm8ZruT4CbQtDRhyx2sD4p8g sxw7hXQnceMNHq36e+5+o+MY769Bgn82rBEusbqJyvz1ez7lp6slN8wMJ1Op+Y7YNNdw 02eDpy7kp4JAesqVYotcEcG++/imM4/9wRbFmKCMuamZ3VNrOzJ/eyNPfdPOQ5P9dwLH OpdaLE5rVuhkywZ9C9vPsyyK6IWQYgyNoxTnlTBB+obtuAsuUTgo/XWxIlPDbeJRtd/I uKKQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=YV73AhsX; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id p12si6330091plk.77.2018.11.30.15.47.37; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:47:52 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=YV73AhsX; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726728AbeLAK5i (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 05:57:38 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:34528 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726679AbeLAK5h (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2018 05:57:37 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f50.google.com (mail-wm1-f50.google.com [209.85.128.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE478214D9 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 23:46:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1543621597; bh=YXKGWjogybj0QGFdppQvo2L5E407T2U7e9VGAFRjA0U=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=YV73AhsXx992YaeXJtw1cKSB/1KjAD3vCnrltIuhx+mEIBJM3cd5x2px4pYDQM+MZ G4/nWNCATZceTQLyf8F84zsQsrA5IyHWDB9xGkEjyutE8ccKIl4ftRyrk3e4GT7E+A wuNtaTxLLq+L1qFOTT+5vWiSdfpSuJ4YLBATkg+U= Received: by mail-wm1-f50.google.com with SMTP id n133so525301wmd.4 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:46:36 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY9f9jZGxC9q0P/P/62LbjGAAreQGih0Tk8KrGQnUw30O8VUqbo 7rE+A/fAC/ZXr5Et+epyzOnqmSeinbTLGh4FBGwERw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:110b:: with SMTP id 11mr617855wmr.83.1543621595048; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:46:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181120105124.14733-1-christian@brauner.io> <87in0g5aqo.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <36323361-90BD-41AF-AB5B-EE0D7BA02C21@amacapital.net> <993B98AC-51DF-4131-AF7F-7DA2A7F485F1@brauner.io> <20181129195551.woe2bl3z3yaysqb6@brauner.io> <6E21165F-2C76-4877-ABD9-0C86D55FD6AA@amacapital.net> <87y39b2lm2.fsf@xmission.com> <20181130065606.kmilbbq46oeycjp5@brauner.io> <7C5B4CBD-6364-4DCE-9EFD-3657C67DACEB@brauner.io> In-Reply-To: <7C5B4CBD-6364-4DCE-9EFD-3657C67DACEB@brauner.io> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:46:22 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall To: Christian Brauner Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Daniel Colascione , Andrew Lutomirski , "Eric W. Biederman" , Florian Weimer , LKML , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Jann Horn , Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Aleksa Sarai , Al Viro , Linux FS Devel , Linux API , Tim Murray , linux-man , Kees Cook Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:40 PM Christian Brauner wrote: > > On December 1, 2018 12:12:53 PM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 12:05 AM Daniel Colascione > >wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:26 PM Christian Brauner > > wrote: > >> > On December 1, 2018 11:09:58 AM GMT+13:00, Arnd Bergmann > > wrote: > >> > > >> > One humble point I would like to make is that what I care about > >most is a sensible way forward without having to redo essential parts > >of how syscalls work. > >> > I don't want to introduce a sane, small syscall that ends up > >breaking all over the place because we decided to fix past mistakes > >that technically have nothing to do with the patch itself. > >> > However, I do sympathize and understand these concerns. > >> > >> IMHO, it's fine to just replicate all the splits we have for the > >> existing signal system calls. It's ugly, but once it's done, it'll be > >> done for a long time. I can't see a need to add even more signal > >> system calls after this one. > > > >We definitely need waitid_time64() and rt_sigtimedwait_time64() > >in the very near future. > > Right, I remember you pointing this out in a prior mail. > Thanks for working on this for such a long time now, Arnd! > Can we agree to move on with the procfd syscall given the current constraints? > I just don't want to see the syscall being > blocked by a generic problem whose > ultimate solution is to get rid of weird > architectural constraints. Creating and using a copy_siginfo_from_user64() function would work for everyone, no?