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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 00:48:22 -0400 From: Till Varoquaux <till@....jussieu.fr> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: fork and sigprocmask as an atomic operation? If I understand properly the idiomatic way to set the signal mask in a forked of process is to block all signals in the parent process before calling fork and then setting the desired mask in both processes. sigprocmask() ..... <-- All the signals are going to be put in the pending list clone () ...... sigprocmask() <-- release all the pending signals that we care about. Now; unless I am missing something this does not seem to play well with threads. Providing several threads go through that exact dance at the same time it seems as could this result in the application ending up with the wrong signal mask? Is there any good reason to not add a new flag to clone that would block all signals in the child process? Cheers, Til -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists