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: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1302160021490.10334@linux-mips.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:38:15 +0000 (GMT)
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc:	Shentino <shentino@...il.com>,
	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 Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Al Viro 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.

 So just to be completely safe here -- is your proposed change going to 
affect processes being traced anyhow?  E.g. won't GDB see some sort of a 
limbo state when the child is terminated this way?  According to ptrace(2) 
man page SIGKILL is the only exception to the usual child signal trapping 
policy.

  Maciej
--
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/