linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures

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:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:46:43 -0800
From:	Shentino <shentino@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Shentino <shentino@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> How would you manage to have it masked at that point?  setup_new_exec()
>> is inevitable after success of flush_old_exec() and it will do
>> flush_signal_handlers() for us.
>
> I wouldn't know for sure but I read somewhere that even if execve
> resets handled signals, it didn't also say that ignored signals were
> also reset.  (Source: execve man page.)

Also, apologies for the terminology mix-up.  By masked, I mean that
the signal was ignored as directed by userspace a-la signal(SIGSEGV,
SIG_IGN).

Plus I *think* that signal ignore masks are preserved across an exec.

Again, I might just be a clueless newbie here.
--
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/