linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal: protect SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE from unintentional clearing.

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, 28 Nov 2016 12:14:34 +0000
From:   Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@...cle.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: protect SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE from unintentional
 clearing.

Hi Oleg,

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 08:04:20PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/16, Jamie Iles wrote:
> >
> > This can result in init becoming stoppable/killable after tracing.  For
> > example, running:
> >
> >   while true; do kill -STOP 1; done &
> >   strace -p 1
> 
> > and then stopping strace and the kill loop will result in init being
> > left in state TASK_STOPPED.  Sending SIGCONT to init will resume it, but
> > init will now respond to future SIGSTOP signals rather than ignoring
> > them.
> 
> Yes, and a lot more... I forgot about these problems again.
> 
> Jamie, sorry for delay, I'll try to read the patch and reply tomorrow.

Did you get chance to look at the patch?  I did have another thought - 
rather than the accessors, we could change signal_struct to have:

  unsigned int unkillable:1;
  unsigned int flags:31;

to separate signal_unkillable from flags, making it a bit safer in the 
future.

Jamie