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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706211100200.3593@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.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 Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> Yes, force_sig() unblocks and un-ignores the signal. However, unlike group-wide
> signals, thread-specific signals do not convert themselves to SIGKILL on delivery.
> The target thread should dequeue SIGSEGV and then it calls do_group_exit().

No it couldn't.

Why? Because the target thread is the one that *caused* the SIGSEGV in the 
first place. It's not going to dequeue *anything*. It's either going to 
take the SIGSEGV, or it's going to get another SIGSEGV and now it's no 
longer masked/handled and it's going to die.

		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/