On 06/24, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> writes: > > > Add Eric. > > > > OK, I agree, it seems we need a simple fix. > > > > Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > But let me add some "offtopic" notes... Why do we actually need this fix? > > > > kill_something_info(). But at first glance sys_kill/kill_something_info > > can simply use SEND_SIG_NOINFO? If yes, this makes sense anyway, I will > > re-check...
.... > So I think tracing the basic kill syscall is interesting. > > It uses an explicit siginfo. It does that so it can choose > between setting si_code to SI_TKILL and SI_USER. > > If the signal number is -1 it sends to every process in the > system (or at least the pid namespace). > > That will require translation. Most probably I was wrong, I didn't try to re-check yet. But at first glance kill_something_info() never use SI_TKILL, and __send_signal_locked(SEND_SIG_NOINFO) will do the necessary translation, in this case si_pid/si_uid are the current task's pid/uid. But again, I am not sure. Didn't have to to actually look at this code. > I suspect just fixing send_signal_locked looks the easiest, > especially if you make the siginfo parameter const. Yes, agreed, and I have already acked this patch. I think we can improve this unconditional rewrite later, on top of this fix. Oleg.
