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]

Message-ID: <20130216074348.GC4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:43:48 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Raymond Jennings <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 11:20:18PM -0800, Raymond Jennings wrote:

> An even bigger question might be why an execve is allowed to get into
> an unrecoverable state to begin with.  Assuming that one builds the
> new mm_struct and whatnot BEFORE discarding old state, why would
> execve be in a position for a fatal error in the first place?

When would you kill the rest of thread group?  Take a look at de_thread() -
we are not just replacing ->mm during execve().  Signal delivery logics,
etc.
--
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/