linux-kernel - Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext()

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: <568E8540.1060609@list.ru>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:33:20 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sigaltstack breaks swapcontext()

06.01.2016 22:53, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru> wrote:
>> Exactly.
>> Do you think this can be ignored?
>> A man page should then be corrected with EPERM and the
>> above note removed, right?
>>
> I think it can be ignored.  I'd go the SS_FORCE route, though, to
> maintain POSIX compliance.
I think such a flag would be a wrong thing to do.
Allowing only SS_DISABLE (without any new flags) keeps
you still "compatible with posix", and anything beyond
SS_DISABLE in a sighandler is not needed.

So I think we only have the following options:
1. Remove the check and forget (if anything, glibc can
add the EPERM check to stay compatible with crap).
2. Allow only SS_DISABLE. This will mean a large patch,
touching all arches, but the bonus is the compatibility
with posix, that no one needs in this particular case.
--
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/