linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/1] signals: don't abuse __flush_signals() in selinux_bprm_committed

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:	Mon, 4 May 2015 18:45:35 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] signals: don't abuse __flush_signals() in
	selinux_bprm_committed_creds()

On 05/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 05/01, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
>
> > I also found a __flush_signals() use in:
> >
> >   security/selinux/hooks.c
> >
> and I simply can't understand this code... but I feel that it can't
> be correct ;) Will try to re-read tomorrow.

Yes, this doesn't look right. Lets kill __flush_signals() first, there
are no other users.

And I am not sure it is fine to flush SIGSTOP... do we really want this?

Oleg.

--
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/