linux-kernel - Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607312152240.4168@g5.osdl.org>
Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
cc:	paulmck@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context



On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
>
> This patch (b0423a0d9cc836b2c3d796623cd19236bfedfe63)
> 
> [PATCH] Remove duplicate code in signal.c
> 
> reverts a patch introduced by Linus long time back.

Good catch.

> Was this intentional?
> 
> With the current mainline code, SIGSEGV inside a SIGSEGV handler will endup
> in linux handling endless recursive faults.
> 
> Just wondering if this has been discussed before and is intentional.

It certainly wasn't discussed, and I don't think it was intentional. We 
should _not_ just unblock a blocked signal. We should kill the process, 
because sending the signal is actually very very wrong.

Paul? Should I just revert, or did you have some deeper reason for it?

		Linus
-
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/