[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21760.46870.338764.599348@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:43:50 +0100
From: Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>
To: Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't allow blocking of signals using sigreturn.
Jann Horn writes:
> Or should I throw this patch away and write a patch
> for the prctl() manpage instead that documents that
> being able to call sigreturn() implies being able to
> effectively call sigprocmask(), at least on some
> architectures like X86?
Well, that is the semantics of sigreturn(). It is essentially
setcontext() [which includes the actions of sigprocmask()], but
with restrictions on parameter placement (at least on x86).
You could introduce some setting to restrict that aspect for
seccomp processes, but you can't change this for normal processes
without breaking things.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists