Is it possible to avoid adding any syscall?
Since holding /proc/pid/reg_file can also hold the pid.
With this guarantee, /proc/pid/uuid (universally unique identifier ) can be
introduced to identify tasks, the kernel generates
a uuid for every task when created.
save_pid_uuid_pair_for_later_kill(int pid) {
/* save via /proc/$pid/uuid */
/* don't need to keep any fd after save */
}
safe_kill(pid, uuid, sig) {
fd = open(/proc/$pid/uuid); /* also hold the pid until close() if
open() successes */
if (open successes and read uuid from fd and if it equals to uuid)
kill(pid, sig)
close(fd)
}
All things needed to be done is to implement /proc/pid/uuid. And if pid can't
be recycled within 1 ticket, or the user can ensure it. The user can use
starttime(in /proc/pid/stat) instead.
save_pid_starttime_pair_for_later_kill(int pid) {
/* save via /proc/$pid/stat */
/* don't need to keep any fd after save or keep it for 1 ticket at most */
}
safe_kill(pid, starttime, sig) {
fd = open(/proc/$pid/stat); /* also hold the pid until close() if
open() successes */
if (open successes and read starttime from fd and if it equals to starttime)
kill(pid, sig)
close(fd)
}
In this case, zero LOC is added in the kernel. All of it depends on
the guarantee that holding /proc/pid/reg_file also holds the pid,
one of which I haven't checked carefully either.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:05 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On December 7, 2018 7:56:44 AM GMT+13:00, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >* Andy Lutomirski:
> >
> >>> I suppose that's fine. Or alternatively, when thread group support
> >is
> >>> added, introduce a flag that applications have to use to enable it,
> >so
> >>> that they can probe for support by checking support for the flag.
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't be opposed to a new system call like this either:
> >>>
> >>> int procfd_open (pid_t thread_group, pid_t thread_id, unsigned
> >flags);
> >>>
> >>> But I think this is frowned upon on the kernel side.
> >>
> >> I have no problem with it, except that I think it shouldn’t return an
> >> fd that can be used for proc filesystem access.
> >
> >Oh no, my intention was that it would just be used with *_send_signal
> >and related functions.
>
> Let's postpone that discussion a little.
> I think we don't need a syscall to base this off of pids.
> As I said I rather send my revived version of CLONE_NEWFD that would serve the same task.
> The same way we could also just add a new open() flag that blocks fs access completely.
> I just pitched that idea to Serge a few days back: O_NOCHDIR or similar.
> That could even be part of Aleksa's path resolution patchset.
>
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Florian
>
