linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch_ptrace

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, 12 Dec 2007 14:36:27 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch_ptrace_stop

> Mutter.  These would be better as static inlines.  A macro just invites
> variable-unused warnings on non-ia64 and outright compilation errors on
> ia64.  Speaking from experience...
> 
> static inline void arch_ptrace_stop(int exit_code, siginfo_t *info)
> {
> }
> #define arch_ptrace_stop arch_ptrace_stop
> 
> should work?

That's fine with me.  I just followed the example of e.g. arch_ptrace_attach.

> >  /*
> > + * Return nonzero if there is a SIGKILL that should be waking us up.
> > + * Called with the siglock held.
> > + */
> > +static int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > +	return ((sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGKILL) ||
> > +		 sigismember(&tsk->signal->shared_pending.signal, SIGKILL)) &&
> > +		!unlikely(sigismember(&tsk->blocked, SIGKILL)));
> > +}
> 
> Could you please take a peek at the infrastructure added by
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc4/2.6.24-rc4-mm1/broken-out/add-lock_page_killable.patch
> and see if there is exploitable commonality?

I haven't reviewed that whole set in detail yet.  So I'd rather leave this
for a later cleanup.  (This ptrace change alone, along with its ia64
pieces, can probably go in much earlier without disrupting anything else.)

The fatal_signal_pending function in that patch is not exactly the same as
this check, though it might turn out that it's actually equivalent due to
higher-level constraints.  


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/