linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] signal: make group kill signal fatal

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:	Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:54:52 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] signal: make group kill signal fatal

On 05/26/2009 12:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Heh. In this case you have another (long-standing) issue, please note
> the "if (p->flags & PF_EXITING)" check in wants_signal().
> 
> There is no guarantee the signal will wake up the exiting task task.
> Even SIGKILL, even if you use wait_event_interruptible() instead of
> _killable.

Last question, doesn't wait_event_interruptible return immediately in
this case? signal_pending returns true due to non-captured signal which
killed the application and hence we are in the .release under these
special circumstances. I think this is not much expected behavior, is
it? Shouldn't be that signal dequeued/cleared instead?
--
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/