[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Masquerade sender information

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg at fr.ibm.com):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm at xmission.com):
> >> sukadev at us.ibm.com writes:
> >>
> >>> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev at us.ibm.com>
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] Masquerade sender information
> >>>
> >>> With multiple pid namespaces, sender of a signal could be in an ancestor
> >>> namespace of the receiver and so the sender will not have a valid 'pid_t'
> >>> in the receiver's namespace.
> >>>
> >>> In this case, masquerade the 'siginfo' for the signal to pretend that the
> >>> signal originated from the kernel.
> >> At first glance this looks ok.  I think the only case where we can
> >> be sending a signal from inside a pid namespace to something not
> >> in a child pid namespace is if we are the kernel.  In which case
> > 
> > Are we now blocking F_SETOWN|F_SETSIG signals to outside our pid
> > namespace?  mq_notify?  (I didn't think we were)
> 
> My understanding is that we're not blokcing and that a process killing 
> another process in a sibling pid namespace will have a si_pid = 0.

And I think I'm fine with that, I was just wondering about Eric's claim
that only the kernel can send signals from inside a pidns to something
not in a child pidns.  We can treat these cases as being from the
kernel, but it's not in fact the case that the signals came from the
kernel.

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers