On 11/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 11/10, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > Oleg Nesterov [oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > > | > Or something. yes, sys_rt_sigqueueinfo() is problematic... > > > > Yes, if user-space sets si_pid to 0. > > > > Can we change sys_rt_sigqueueinfo() to: > > > > if (!info->si_pid) > > info->si_pid = getpid(); > > I doubt very much we can do this. This can break the existing applications > which can overload ->si_pid. I think it is better to pass ->si_pid as is. > If user-space sends siginfo_t so sub-namespace, it must know what it does. > I don't think the kernel can help, it just can't know what ->si_pid actually > means. Unless this is documented somewhere, but I don't know. On the second thought, I think perhaps we should do the following. if sys_rt_sigqueueinfo() sends the signal to the sub-namespace, then clear always ->sid_pid. Otherwise do not touch it. This way we can't break the existing apps, and this simplifies send_signal() which should take "is_it_from_ancestor_ns" into account. What do you think? Oleg. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
