lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] prctl: add PR_[GS]ET_KILLABLE
From
Date
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 18:26 +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:01 AM Jürg Billeter <j@bitron.ch> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> > index 38509dc1f77b..264de630d548 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sys.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sys.c
>
> [...]
> > + case PR_SET_KILLABLE:
> > + if (arg2 != 1 || arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + me->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> > + break;
>
> I don't have an opinion on this patchset otherwise, but should this
> prctl maybe block PR_SET_KILLABLE if you're actually the real init
> process? This seems like it could potentially lead to weird things.

While I don't expect global init to use this, I can't think of a good
reason to disallow it in the kernel. Do you have specific concerns or
is the code in kernel/fork.c the only reason? I prefer avoiding special
cases unless really required.

> This code in kernel/fork.c seems to rely on the fact that global init
> is SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE, and probably also leads to weirdness if
> container init is non-SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE:

Yes, Oleg has mentioned this as well. I have to change copy_process()
to directly check for the PID namespace root process instead of
checking for SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE.

Jürg

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-01 09:47    [W:0.150 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site