linux-kernel - patch uml-kill-subprocesses-on-exit.patch queued to -stable tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:58:06 -0800
From:	<gregkh@...e.de>
To:	ytht.net@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...e.de,
	jdike@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc:	<stable@...nel.org>, <stable-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: patch uml-kill-subprocesses-on-exit.patch queued to -stable tree


This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled

     Subject: UML - kill subprocesses on exit

to the 2.6.23-stable tree.  Its filename is

     uml-kill-subprocesses-on-exit.patch

A git repo of this tree can be found at 
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary


>From stable-bounces@...ux.kernel.org Thu Nov  1 12:54:06 2007
From: Lepton Wu <ytht.net@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:53:27 -0400
Subject: UML - kill subprocesses on exit
To: stable@...nel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, uml-devel <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, Lepton Wu <ytht.net@...il.com>
Message-ID: <20071101195327.GA8882@...user-mode-linux.org>
Content-Disposition: inline

From: Lepton Wu <ytht.net@...il.com>

commit a24864a1d52a97e345a6bd4862a057f98364d098

uml: definitively kill subprocesses on panic

In a stock 2.6.22.6 kernel, poweroff a user mode linux guest (2.6.22.6 running
in skas0 mode) will halt the host linux.  I think the reason is the kernel
thread abort because of a bug.  Then the sys_reboot in process of user mode
linux guest is not trapped by the user mode linux kernel and is executed by
host.  I think it is better to make sure all of our children process to quit
when user mode linux kernel abort.

[ jdike - the kernel process needs to ignore SIGTERM, plus the waitpid/kill
loop is needed to make sure that all of our children are dead before the
kernel exits ]

Signed-off-by: Lepton Wu <ytht.net@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <jdike@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>

---
 arch/um/os-Linux/skas/process.c |    2 +-
 arch/um/os-Linux/util.c         |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/um/os-Linux/skas/process.c
+++ b/arch/um/os-Linux/skas/process.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static int userspace_tramp(void *stack)
 
 	ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME, 0, 0, 0);
 
-	init_new_thread_signals();
+	signal(SIGTERM, SIG_DFL);
 	err = set_interval(1);
 	if(err)
 		panic("userspace_tramp - setting timer failed, errno = %d\n",
--- a/arch/um/os-Linux/util.c
+++ b/arch/um/os-Linux/util.c
@@ -105,6 +105,44 @@ int setjmp_wrapper(void (*proc)(void *, 
 
 void os_dump_core(void)
 {
+	int pid;
+
 	signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_DFL);
+
+	/*
+	 * We are about to SIGTERM this entire process group to ensure that
+	 * nothing is around to run after the kernel exits.  The
+	 * kernel wants to abort, not die through SIGTERM, so we
+	 * ignore it here.
+	 */
+
+	signal(SIGTERM, SIG_IGN);
+	kill(0, SIGTERM);
+	/*
+	 * Most of the other processes associated with this UML are
+	 * likely sTopped, so give them a SIGCONT so they see the
+	 * SIGTERM.
+	 */
+	kill(0, SIGCONT);
+
+	/*
+	 * Now, having sent signals to everyone but us, make sure they
+	 * die by ptrace.  Processes can survive what's been done to
+	 * them so far - the mechanism I understand is receiving a
+	 * SIGSEGV and segfaulting immediately upon return.  There is
+	 * always a SIGSEGV pending, and (I'm guessing) signals are
+	 * processed in numeric order so the SIGTERM (signal 15 vs
+	 * SIGSEGV being signal 11) is never handled.
+	 *
+	 * Run a waitpid loop until we get some kind of error.
+	 * Hopefully, it's ECHILD, but there's not a lot we can do if
+	 * it's something else.  Tell os_kill_ptraced_process not to
+	 * wait for the child to report its death because there's
+	 * nothing reasonable to do if that fails.
+	 */
+
+	while ((pid = waitpid(-1, NULL, WNOHANG)) > 0)
+		os_kill_ptraced_process(pid, 0);
+
 	abort();
 }


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from ytht.net@...il.com are

queue-2.6.23/uml-kill-subprocesses-on-exit.patch
-
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/