linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] protect /sbin/init from unwanted signals more

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:	Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:24:18 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] protect /sbin/init from unwanted signals more

On 11/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/19, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >
> > The effect is fine, but that seems like a kludgey way to do it.
>
> Agreed, that is why I did the next patch to kill the ugliness.
>
> > I really don't think the sigaction case matters--certainly it will never
> > come up with SIGKILL.
>
> Yes. This patch doesn't affect sigaction, the next one adds a very

(this one, not the next one)

> minor side effect: init drops pending !sig_kernel_ignore() signals
> if it does sigaction(SIG_IGN). But this has nothing to do with SIGKILL
> of course.

Ah sorry, now I see I misunderstood you...

You mean, we shouldn't touch the sigaction() path. Now I am wondering
if it is really OK to drop signals if init does sigaction(SIG_DFL),
perhaps you are right.

Oleg.

--
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/