linux-kernel - Re: [path][rfc] add PR

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:	Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:14:45 +0400
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
To:	Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>
CC:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [path][rfc] add PR_DETACH prctl command

09.04.2011 00:52, Bryan Donlan wrote:
> Still, you can workaround this by either:
Yes, sure.

> a) Load the vendor library via dlopen()
Too much to dlsym(), and by the way, what does this give?
I _have to_ init that lib early at bootup, so I don't see how
dlopen will help, could you clarify?

> b) Use a separate launcher executable to handle the fork-and-wait
Yes, that's certainly possible, except that I was trying the
semaphore instead of a signal, as in your example, but its
the same.

> Just kill(atoi(getenv("LAUNCHER_PID")), SIGUSR1) to detach. Much
> easier than doing some very racy things in the kernel, no? It's
> certainly more obvious that this ought to be correct in the face of
> races with its parent :)
But what races do you mean? Yes, the workaround is a
workaround, and it works. And is simpler to implement. :)
But what problems do you see with the PR_DETACH approach,
except for the bugs in my patch? :) I mean, the fact that
daemon() silently loses threads, sounds like a limitation,
after all.
--
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/