linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5690D845.5090308@nod.at>
Date:	Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:52:05 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get_signal() usage

Am 09.01.2016 um 04:51 schrieb Al Viro:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:51:43AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> If get_signal() returns us a signal to post
>> we must not call it again, otherwise the already
>> posted signal will be overridden.
>> Before commit a610d6e672d this was the case as we stopped
>> the while after a successful handle_signal().
> 
> Old behaviour had been wrong.  If you have several pending signals,
> more than one sigframe should be built, as if the second, etc. had
> been delivered right on the entry into the handler.
> 
> Stopping after the first one is obviously wrong - consider the case
> when attempt to deliver it has raised SIGSEGV.

You are right. Thanks for pointing this out.
Will revert.

Thanks,
//richard