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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20110328160125.F06F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:00:49 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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).

Ok, I didn't have enough brave. Will do.


--
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/