linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] Protect cinit from fatal signals

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: <20081127010753.GB13545@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:07:53 +0100
From:	Bastian Blank <bastian@...di.eu.org>
To:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	oleg@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, roland@...hat.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] Protect cinit from fatal signals

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 07:46:34PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> To protect container-init from fatal signals, set SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE but
> clear it if it receives SIGKILL from parent namespace - so it is still
> killable from ancestor namespace.

This sounds like a workaround.

> Note that container-init is still somewhat special compared to 'normal
> processes' - unhandled fatal signals like SIGUSR1 to a container-init
> are dropped even if they are from ancestor namespace. SIGKILL from an
> ancestor namespace is the only reliable way to kill a container-init.

It sounds not right to make this special case for a "normal" process.

However, no idea how to do this better.

Bastian

-- 
The heart is not a logical organ.
		-- Dr. Janet Wallace, "The Deadly Years", stardate 3479.4
--
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/