linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

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]

Message-ID: <20060820152515.GA19948@openwall.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:25:15 +0400
From:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:26:02AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I'm just wondering why you return a SIGSEGV.

I've taken the SIGSEGV from binfmt_elf.c, where it is used on "Unable to
load interpreter", a condition that commonly occurs on OOM.

> When the kernel kills
> tasks on OOM conditions, it sends either SIGTERM or SIGKILL, as we
> can see here in mm/oom_kill.c:__oom_kill_task() :
> 
>         p->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC | PF_MEMDIE;
>         /* This process has hardware access, be more careful. */
>         if (cap_t(p->cap_effective) & CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) {
>                 force_sig(SIGTERM, p);
>         } else {
>                 force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
>         }
> 
> Shouldn't we simply re-use the same code ?

I have no objections.

Thanks,

Alexander
-
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/