linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/41] OpenRISC: Don't reimplement force

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: <20110818174753.GC6910@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:47:54 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/41] OpenRISC: Don't reimplement force_sigsegv()

On 08/16, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 18:49 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And since force_sigsegv() drops
> > the lock after setting SIG_DFL we can "race" with the sub-thread anyway.
>
> I did notice that race in force_sigsegv() too, is it a real problem?

Oh, I don't really know. I mean, I do not know if this really needs
the fix.

OK, suppose that another thread does signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN) in
between. This probably means it asks for the problems anyway. and
we can pretend this was done before this SIGSEGV was dequeued.

If it does signal(SIGSEGV, my_handler), then most probably
force_sigsegv() will be called again soon, after dequeueing SIGSEGV.

Oleg.

--
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/