linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH][v2] Define/use siginfo_from_ancestor

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:28:17 -0800
From:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	oleg@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com
Cc:	daniel@...ac.com, xemul@...nvz.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][v2] Define/use siginfo_from_ancestor_ns()

| @@ -864,6 +902,9 @@ static int send_signal(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
|  		 * and sent by user using something other than kill().
|  		 */
|  			return -EAGAIN;
| +
| +		if (from_ancestor_ns)
| +			return -ENOMEM;
|  	}
| 
|  out_set:

We had wanted to start with a check like above and improve later.

But if sender is from ancestor namespace, we must post the signal even if
we don't have the siginfo right ?  Otherwise, a SIGKILL from ancestor may
get the -ENOMEM ?

Conversely, if a signal from same namespace is being posted to cinit, and
we don't have siginfo, ->si_pid would be 0 and get_signal_to_deliver()
would mistake that the sender is an ancestor ns and process the signal
(which should have been ignored).

So, maybe we should start with the reverse check ?

	if (same_ns && (t->signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE))
		return -ENOMEM;

Sukadev
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/