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  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, 10 Feb 2022 10:41:57 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>
Cc:     Robert Święcki <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Will Drewry <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:17:50PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This fixes the signal refactoring to actually kill unkillable processes
> > when receiving a fatal SIGSYS from seccomp. Thanks to Robert for the
> > report and Eric for the fix! I've also tweaked seccomp internal a bit to
> > fail more safely. This was a partial seccomp bypass, in the sense that
> > SECCOMP_RET_KILL_* didn't kill the process, but it didn't bypass other
> > aspects of the filters. (i.e. the syscall was still blocked, etc.)
> Any luck on figuring out how to suppress the extra event?

I haven't found a good single indicator of a process being in an "I am dying"
state, and even if I did, it seems every architecture's exit path would
need to add a new test.

The best approach seems to be clearing the TIF_*WORK* bits, but that's
still a bit arch-specific. And I'm not sure which layer would do that.
At what point have we decided the process will not continue? More
than seccomp was calling do_exit() in the middle of a syscall, but those
appear to have all been either SIGKILL or SIGSEGV?

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists