linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflow check

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: <47BB6558.4020201@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:25:12 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Shi Weihua <shiwh@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflow
 check

Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
>> * Shi Weihua <shiwh@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We need to check for stack overflow only when the signal is on stack. 
>>> So we can improve the patch "http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/27/101" as 
>>> following.
>> thanks, applied.
> 
> These patches change the behaviour of programs that longjmp out of a
> signal handler on an alternate stack, don't they?
> 
> I'm interested to know what gave you confidence that changing that
> behaviour won't break existing working programs.
> 

Shouldn't such programs use sigsetjmp/siglongjmp, which should reset the 
signal stack state?

	-hpa
--
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/