linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG

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:	Sat, 22 Jun 2013 21:09:40 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)

On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
>
> On 06/21/2013 01:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/21/2013 06:39 AM, James Hogan wrote:
>>>> Therefore add sig_to_exitcode() and exitcode_to_sig() functions which
>>>> map signal numbers > 126 to exit code 126 and puts the remainder (i.e.
>>>> sig - 126) in higher bits. This allows WIFSIGNALED() to return true for
>>>> both SIG127 and SIG128, and allows WTERMSIG to be later updated to read
>>>> the correct signal number for SIG127 and SIG128.
>>>
>>> I really hate this approach.
>>>
>>> Can we just change the ABI to reduce the number of signals so that all
>>> the standard C library wait related macros don't have to be changed?
>>>
>>> Think about it, any user space program using signal numbers 127 and 128
>>> doesn't work correctly as things exist today, so removing those two will
>>> be no great loss.
>>
>> Oh, I agree.
>>
>> Besides, this changes ABI anyway. And if we change it we can do this in
>> a more clean way, afaics. MIPS should simply use 2 bytes in exit_code for
>> signal number.
>
> Wouldn't that break *all* existing programs that use signals?  Perhaps I
> misunderstand what you are suggesting.

Of course this will break the userspace more than the original patch,
that is why I said "And yes, this means that WIFSIGNALED/etc should
be updated".

> I am proposing that we just reduce the number of usable signals such
> that existing libc status checking macros/functions don't change in any
> way.

And I fully agree! Absolutely, sorry for confusion.


What I tried to say, _if_ we change the ABI instead, lets make this
change sane.

To me this hack is not sane. And btw, the patch doesn't look complete.
Say, wait_task_zombie() should do exitcode_to_sig() for ->si_status.

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/