linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] signal: sigprocmask fixes

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:	Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:16:43 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] signal: sigprocmask fixes

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Once again: if we need this, then we need a lot more (trivial) changes
> like 6/7 and 7/7. Basically every change of ->blocked should be converted
> to use set_current_blocked(). OTOH, perhaps this makes sense by itself.

Hmm. The more I think about this, the less I like it.

What if the pending thread signal was thread-specific to begin with?

For example, if we have a SIGFPE and a SIGKILL that happen at the same
time, a dying task may have a SIGFPE pending when it dies, and that
SIGFPE should _not_ be just distributed out to the other threads in
the thread group.

Am I missing something that protects against this?

                  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/