linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7][v8] zap_pid_ns_process() should use force

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]

Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:59:54 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, roland@...hat.com,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, daniel@...ac.com,
	Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7][v8] zap_pid_ns_process() should use force_sig()

On 02/18, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
>  	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  	nr = next_pidmap(pid_ns, 1);
>  	while (nr > 0) {
> -		kill_proc_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV, nr);
> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Use force_sig() since it clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE ensuring
> +		 * any nested-container's init processes don't ignore the
> +		 * signal
> +		 */
> +		task = pid_task(find_vpid(nr), PIDTYPE_PID);
> +		force_sig(SIGKILL, task);

Shouldn't we check task != NULL ?

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/