linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/11] signal/arm64: Document conflicts with SI

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: <20180117115708.GM17719@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:57:09 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] signal/arm64: Document conflicts with SI_USER and
 SIGFPE, SIGTRAP, SIGBUS

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 04:28:50PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I will keep FPE_FIXME as a place holder until this gets sorted out.
> 
> There is a second issue I am looking at in this location,
> and maybe I don't have to address it now.  But it looks like the code is
> calling send_sig_info instead of force_sig_info for a synchronous
> exception.  Am I reading that correctly?

VFP used to use force_sig_info(), but it seems to be really the wrong
call to use.  force_sig_info() checks whether the program decided to
ignore or block the signal, and if it did, replaces the signal handler
with the default handler and unblocks the signal.

Are you really suggesting that FP all FP signals should get this
treatment?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up