From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 09:28:47 -0600
Message-ID: <87tvjxp8pc.fsf@xmission.com>
References: <20181120105124.14733-1-christian@brauner.io>
        <87in0g5aqo.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
        <36323361-90BD-41AF-AB5B-EE0D7BA02C21@amacapital.net>
        <993B98AC-51DF-4131-AF7F-7DA2A7F485F1@brauner.io>
        <CALCETrWnQNMQcCmFZrftVVYgAMW6DT3gyxvVb_v9_enUCUkHiw@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181129195551.woe2bl3z3yaysqb6@brauner.io>
        <6E21165F-2C76-4877-ABD9-0C86D55FD6AA@amacapital.net>
        <CAK8P3a2i9DFaS9-3A9V_pKwFfwVR0bDqgLosmivge3Cx2VyiuQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <87y39b2lm2.fsf@xmission.com>
        <20181130065606.kmilbbq46oeycjp5@brauner.io>
        <CAK8P3a0kqPii5TwFAo_JHLX=o_FDMFVKXxgzzbDjLFZ7OQ5QCQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <87y399s3sc.fsf@xmission.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87y399s3sc.fsf@xmission.com> (Eric W. Biederman's message of
        "Sat, 01 Dec 2018 08:46:43 -0600")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: christian@brauner.io, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, cyphar@cyphar.com, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>, Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org


It just occurs to me that the simple way to implement
procfd_sigqueueinfo info is like:

int copy_siginfo_from_user_any(kernel_siginfo_t *info, siginfo_t *uinfo)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
	if (in_compat_syscall)
		return copy_siginfo_from_user32(info, uinfo);
#endif
	return copy_siginfo_from_user(info, uinfo);                        
}

long procfd_sigqueueinfo(int fd, siginfo_t *uinfo)
{
	kernel_siginfo info;

        if (copy_siginfo_from_user_any(&info, uinfo))
        	return -EFAULT;
	...;                
}

It looks like there is already a place in ptrace.c that already
hand rolls copy_siginfo_from_user_any.

So while I would love to figure out the subset of siginfo_t tha we can
just pass through, as I think that would make a better more forward
compatible copy_siginfo_from_user32.  I think for this use case we just
add the in_compat_syscall test and then we just need to ensure this new
system call is placed in the proper places in the syscall table.

Because we will need 3 call sights: x86_64, x32 and ia32.  As the layout
changes between those three subarchitecuters.

Eric