linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when using pipes in core

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: <1249220996.3638.0.camel@wing-commander>
Date:	Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:49:56 +0100
From:	Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	earl_chew@...lent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when
 using pipes in core_pattern

On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 20:22 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 07:28:52PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 09:41 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Not without additional work.  If init crashed in the initramfs, I don't think
> > > > > theres a way to handle that.  If it crashes at some later time, I think it just
> > > > > gets restarted IIRC.  I'm sure you can change that behavior, but this patch
> > > > > doesn't address that.
> > > > > 
> > > > When the system init daemon crashes, the kernel PANICs.  When not using
> > > > core_pattern, this is ok, we get a core file - when using apport, as far
> > > > as I can tell it never waits for apport to finish so we don't get the
> > > > crash.
> > > > 
> > > This is non-sensical.  If init crashes, and the kernel panics, you'll only get a
> > > core by sheer luck and good fortune.
> > > 
> > Or by being a bit clever.  Upstart catches the SIGSEGV and the signal
> > handler forks a child process, unmasking the signal in that child
> > process with no signal handler installed.
> > 
> I don't see how this works.  How is upstart (which by definition is a child of
> init (pid 1)) going to catch a SIGSEGV from its parent?  How would any process
> catch a signal targeted to its parent?
> 
Upstart *is* /sbin/init (pid 1)

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@...ntu.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)