linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as SI

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,  6 Oct 2009 00:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as
	SI_FROMUSER()

This whole series looks fine to me.  I think in commenting and cleaning up
any of this, it bears explicit mention that (almost) every signal is
potentially reduced to SI_USER.  That is, in siqueue exhaustion you don't
get any info and only non-special non-SI_USER >=SIGRTMIN signals ever fail
to get posted, so you get the all-zeros defaults from collect_signal() at
delivery time.  That's the principle you're encoding in your si_fromuser()
logic, but your logs and comments are not explicit about the relationship
between that logic and what's implicit in the queue-exhaustion behavior.

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/