Re: [PATCH v2] signal: add procfd_signal() syscall

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 4:07 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> On Dec 1, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Seems reasonable to me. Itâs less code overall than any other suggestion, too.
> >
> >>  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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If itâs done this way, it can just be âcommonâ in the 64-bit
> > table. And we kick the can a bit farther down the road :)
> >
> > Iâm working on patches to clean up x86âs syscall mess. Itâs slow
> > because I keep finding new messes.  So far I have rt_sigreturn working
> > like every other syscall â whee.
> >
> > Also, Eric, for your edification, I have a draft patch set to
> > radically simplify x86âs signal delivery and return.  Once thatâs
> > done, I can trivially speed up delivery by a ton by using sysret.
>
> Nice.
>
> Do we care about the performance of synchronous signal delivery (AKA
> hardware exceptions) vs ordinary signal delivery.  I get the feeling
> there are serious simplifications to be had in that case.
>


I dunno what user code cares about.  Linux's support for synchronous
exception handling is so far behind, say, Windows, that I don't know
if it's even used for anything very serious.  We should probably
profile it after I finish my changes and we can see how bad it is.  We
can't do anything at all about the time it takes the CPU to deliver
the exception, and trying to avoid IRET when we return would be tricky
at best, although siglongjmp() might end up skipping it.