Re: Is zero a valid value for the pid member of the AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO message?

Richard Guy Briggs
2014-03-12T15:35:56Z

On 14/03/12, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:32:01 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > On 14/03/11, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 18:15 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> > > > Is zero a valid value for the pid member of the AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO
> > > > message?
> > >
> > > No...
> > >
> > > Given that userspace requests AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO after it gets a signal,
> > > and that audit_sig_{uid,pid,...} get filled in when some task sent
> > > auditd that signal, the idea that the pid would be 0 doesn't make
> > > sense... (unless auditd requests AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO without getting a
> > > signal, but that's just dumb)
> >
> > The reason I ask is that it is initialized to -1, which I assume is no
> > more valid than zero in your interpretation above.
>
> pid=-1 has a special meaning for signals. But in terms of seeing it in a
> sigaction handler for siginfo, not possible. So its a good init value. If you
> look at sigaction(2), there is a si_code that indicates why the signal was
> sent. One of them is SI_KERNEL. So, its possible that the kernel decides to
> send a signal on certain occasions.

That message is only sent on request from userspace, so I suppose
userspace could request that information at any time, but the only time
it would be meaningful is after that userspace process has received a
signal.

> > I looked at converting audit_sig_pid from pid_t to struct pid *, but
> > then get_pid() would also be needed to protect that reference. A
> > put_pid() would need to be done once it is no longer needed, which could
> > be immediately after it is read in the AUDIT_SIGNAL_INFO message
> > preparation, assuming it would never need to be read again. If this
> > isn't the case, put_pid() could be called when audit_pid is nulled, but
> > if that message never comes, that struct pid is stuck with a stale
> > refcount. (That isn't an issue if it is init or systemd, but it is
> > still wrong.)
> >
> > This looks more and more like overkill and should probably leave
> > audit_sig_pid as pid_t.
>
> The code has been working good for a long time. I am wondering if the original
> intent was to make it general in case we decided to add more signals that we
> are interested in.

Such as HUP to reread config or other possibilities?

> -Steve