linux-kernel - Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

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:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:46:57 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 19:15 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:

> Ok, why instead don't we go for something like the attached patch?
> We exclude sync signals from signalfd, but we don't limit signalfd to 
> shared signals. Ie, we should be able to fetch a signal sent with 
> sys_tkill() to threads different from "current", that otherwise we would 
> not be able to fetch.
> Ben, sorry but my memory sucks ... the "notifier" thing was fine in that 
> case, no?

I'm generally nervous about the idea of letting signalfd dequeue
somebody else private signals... even if we filter out SEGV's and
friends but I'll let Linus decide there.

Regarding the notifier, it's dodgy in most cases I'd say but I suppose
it should be allright to only worry about "current" and not the target
task there.

Ben. 

-
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/