[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081120152039.GB3325@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:20:39 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] protect /sbin/init from unwanted signals more
On 11/19, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> The effect is fine, but that seems like a kludgey way to do it.
Agreed, that is why I did the next patch to kill the ugliness.
> I really don't think the sigaction case matters--certainly it will never
> come up with SIGKILL.
Yes. This patch doesn't affect sigaction, the next one adds a very
minor side effect: init drops pending !sig_kernel_ignore() signals
if it does sigaction(SIG_IGN). But this has nothing to do with SIGKILL
of course.
> What about just this instead?
>
> + if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
> + (handler == SIG_IGN || handler == SIG_DFL))
> + return 1;
> +
> if (!sig_handler_ignored(handler, sig))
> return 0;
Yes, this is the same, but anyway this is killed by the next patch.
> For consistency, change tracehook_consider_fatal_signal to match.
Yes, will do.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists