linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86,mm: make pagefault killable

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: <AANLkTinsabm-AHTdc2X550jkAqb=TrBLfrk5CV-WEjGx@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:34:46 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86,mm: make pagefault killable

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I am wondering, can't we set FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE unconditionally
> but check PF_USER when we get VM_FAULT_RETRY? I mean,
>
>        if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
>                if (!(error_code & PF_USER))
>                        no_context(...);
>                return;
>        }

I agree, we should do this.

> Probably not... but I can't find any example of in-kernel fault which
> can be broken by -EFAULT if current was killed.

There's no way that can validly break anything, since any such
codepath has to be able to handle -EFAULT for other reasons anyway.

The only issue is whether we're ok with a regular write() system call
(for example) not being atomic in the presence of a fatal signal. So
it does change semantics, but I think it changes it in a good way
(technically POSIX requires atomicity, but on the other hand,
technically POSIX also doesn't talk about the process being killed,
and writes would still be atomic for the case where they actually
return. Not to mention NFS etc where writes have never been atomic
anyway, so a program that relies on strict "all or nothing" write
behavior is fundamentally broken to begin with).

                         Linus
--
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/