Oleg Nesterov [oleg@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: | On 12/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote: | > | > On 12/20, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: | > > | > > + * TODO: | > > + * Making SI_ASYNCIO a kernel signal could make this less hacky. | > > + */ | > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS | > > +static inline int siginfo_from_user(siginfo_t *info) | > > +{ | > > + if (!is_si_special(info) && SI_FROMUSER(info) && | > | > OK, if we can trust SI_FROMUSER(), then it is better, i agree. | | Aaah, forgot to mention... | | But could you explain how are you going to fix another problem, | .si_pid mangling? This was another reason for (yes, ugly, agreed) | SIG_FROM_USER in .si_signo. Good point. I was going through the ->si_pid assignments to try and fix them at source (like the mqueue patch I sent last week). The two cases that don't fit the model are sys_kill() and sys_tkill(). For that I was hoping we could use siginfo_from_user() again. i.e if (siginfo_from_user()) masquerade_si_pid() in the default: case of send_signal(). To be safe, masquerade_si_pid() could do it only iff si_code is either SI_USER or SI_TKILL. IOW, with some tweaks, I am trying to see if we can use siginfo_from_user() in place of the SIG_FROM_USER. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers