linux-kernel - Re: Signals to cinit

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: <20081112190421.GE3230@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:04:21 -0800
From:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, daniel@...ac.com,
	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>, serue@...ibm.com,
	clg@...ibm.com, Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	sukadev@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Signals to cinit

Oleg Nesterov [oleg@...hat.com] wrote:
| On 11/10, sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
| >
| > Also, what happens if a fatal signal is first received from a descendant
| > and while that is still pending, the same signal is received from ancestor
| > ns ?  Won't the second one be ignored by legacy_queue() for the non-rt case ?

On second thoughts, cinit is a normal process in its ancestor ns so it
might very well ignore the second instance of the signal (as long as it
does not ignore SIGKILL/SIGSTOP)

| 
| Please see my another email:
| 
| 	We must also change sig_ignored() to drop SIGKILL/SIGSTOP early when
| 	it comes from the same ns. Otherwise, it can mask the next SIGKILL
| 	from the parent ns.

Ok.

| 
| 	But this perhaps makes sense anyway, even without containers.
| 	Currently, when the global init has the pending SIGKILL, we can't
| 	trust __wait_event_killable/etc, and this is actually wrong.
| 
| We can drop other SIG_DFL signals from the same namespace early as well.

I think Eric's patchset did this and iirc, we ran into the problem of
blocked SIG_DFL signals ?

| I seem to already did something like sig_init_ignored(), but I forgot.

Yes, I think we had that in the patchset but that was not merged.

| 
| Or, we can just ignore this (imho) minor problem.

I think so too.

| The ancestor ns
| must know it can't reliably kill cinit with (say) SIGTERM. It can
| be ignored, or it can have have a handler, and it can be lost because
| SIGTERM is already pending. Only SIGKILL is special.
| 
| Actually. I personally think that if we manage to achieve that
| 
| 	- the sub-namespace can't kill its init
| 
| 	- the ancestor can always kill cinit with SIGKILL

Yep.

| 
| then imho we should not worry very much about other issues ;)
| 
| Oleg.
--
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/