[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170711151053.GG2681@leverpostej>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:10:53 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: linux-arm-kerne@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, steve.capper@....com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fatal signal handing within uaccess faults
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 08:04:50AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Arch maintainer tl;dr: most arch fault code doesn't handle fatal signals
> > correctly, allowing unprivileged users to create an unkillable task which can
> > lock up the system. Please check whether your arch is affected.
>
> I haven't tested for real, but brief inspection of the code suggests
> that x86 is okay.
AFAICT, yes.
As mentioned later on in the message, I beleive it's been ok since
commit:
26178ec11ef3c6c8 ("x86: mm: consolidate VM_FAULT_RETRY handling")
... and my test-case didn't trigger anything in local testing on my
desktop.
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists