linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures

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, 16 Feb 2013 00:04:35 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Shentino <shentino@...il.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 03:12:30PM -0800, Shentino wrote:
> > +                               send_sig(SIGSEGV, current, 0);
> 
> This might be a stupid miscue on my part, but shouldn't it be
> force_sig instead of send_sig?
> 
> I've got this crazy hunch that having SEGV masked might muck something up.

How would you manage to have it masked at that point?  setup_new_exec()
is inevitable after success of flush_old_exec() and it will do
flush_signal_handlers() for us.

And yes, flush_old_exec() and setup_new_exec() ought to be merged; the
problem with that is the stuff done between those two - setting personality,
plus playing with thread flags if needed.  Unfortunately, there are non-obvious
differences between architectures, so that would have to be hashed out on
linux-arch.  Doesn't affect the point above, though...
--
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/