linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7][v4] Protect cinit from blocked 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090105122423.GA3313@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:24:23 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, bastian@...di.eu.org, daniel@...ac.com,
	xemul@...nvz.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7][v4] Protect cinit from blocked fatal signals

On 12/30, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > > + * If @signal refers to a container-init and @signr is neither SIGKILL nor
> > > + * SIGSTOP, it was queued because it was blocked when it was posted.
> >
> > This is not right too. It is possible that init had a handler when
> > the signal was sent, and the handler was set to SIG_DFL before the
> > signal was dequeued.
>
> do_sigaction's sig_handler_ignored() should exclude that.

Yes sure, but sig_handler_ignored(sig) can be false, it doesn't take
SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE into account.

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/