MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F45887A.5010809@zytor.com>
References: <1329845435-2313-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
	<1329845435-2313-7-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
	<9edbabb2262e3d91a7b8c75dbec03d7f.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl>
	<CABqD9hY1n9EOAKKT0r9Ev+azhBMnLMAM_FgDNe5we9upVePk_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAObL_7Gc0U2JMBQr_kbcVUJwyJq7LRfgdFr+84LR=ec4kSCwEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGXu5jJQrnkCZtcLqK8NEihRgB25C12b0nKp+XWXV_=4QfcVoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABqD9hbC8v-rUBW+4T_-EwDwe1+VDohQZweQ-cxOg2A-iDH5CQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGXu5j+fQqkrrKSm3kmCkCcZJKo-VZjL6kkrOD81LZYBY7tf2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F45887A.5010809@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:44:29 -0600
Message-ID: <CABqD9havUbeHDQVqxf7iy1XjNSrUkh=ehSW_h2OfU2QQ_VQaaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous.
From: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>,
        Indan Zupancic <indan@nul.nu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, davem@davemloft.net, mingo@redhat.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net,
        mcgrathr@chromium.org, tglx@linutronix.de, eparis@redhat.com,
        serge.hallyn@canonical.com, djm@mindrot.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com,
        pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        eric.dumazet@gmail.com, markus@chromium.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1686
Lines: 38

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 04:08 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> Hrm, it might be possible to do_exit(SIGSYS) which would be both. It
>>> looks like tsk->exit_code would be SIGSYS then, but I'll look a little
>>> more closely to see what that'll actually do.
>>
>> As long as there's no way it can get blocked, I'd be fine with that.
>> It would, actually, be better than SIGKILL because, as Andy said, it's
>> more distinguishable from other situations. I've long wanted a signal
>> to be used for "violated policy" that wasn't just a straight SIGKILL.
>>
>
> Can we really introduce force-kill semantics for a POSIX-defined signal?
> ?Other user space programs might use it for other purposes.
>
> I'm wondering if the right thing may be to introduce some variant of
> exit() which can return more information about a signal, including some
> kind of cause code for SIGKILL?

While it'd be harder to send back extra info, passing SIGSYS to
do_exit() should result in the si_status for the emitted SIGCHLD to be
SIGSYS (si_status = (tsk->exit_code & 0x7f)).  I think it'll still
have a si_code of CLD_KILLED, but it'd be enough for a parent to
differentiate the task-death path.  I'll try it out before I post
another patch rev.

A variant that allowed extended exit information would be useful
(especially for this patch series), I'm not sure I'd know where to
start.

cheers!
will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/