linux-kernel - Re: sigaltstack fun

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: <20121118.222724.1495808364736017374.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 18 Nov 2012 22:27:24 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, monstr@...str.eu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sigaltstack fun

From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:35:07 +0000

> sparc64: not any error from do_sigaltstack() should fail rt_sigreturn()
> 
> If a signal handler is executed on altstack and another signal comes,
> we will end up with rt_sigreturn() on return from the second handler
> getting -EPERM from do_sigaltstack().  It's perfectly OK, since we
> are not asking to change the settings; in fact, they couldn't have been
> changed during the second handler execution exactly because we'd been
> on altstack all along.  64bit sigreturn on sparc treats any error from
> do_sigaltstack() as "SIGSEGV now"; we need to switch to the same semantics
> we are using on other architectures.
> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>

Applied, thanks.
--
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/