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

Steve Grubb
2014-03-12T12:44:46Z

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.

> 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.

-Steve