linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/20] signal: Don't restart fork when signals come in.

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:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:15:21 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>, majiang <ma.jiang@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/20] signal: Don't restart fork when signals come in.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:05 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> What I hear you asking is  moving up copy_signal copy_sighand copy_creds
> and alloc_pid, and anything else that signal delivery might depend on.

No, _just_ signal allocation.

It would still just use the special-case list to set the pending bit.
No creds, no "full task", nothing like that.

> I really want something very simple and straight forward because I don't
> see us testing or hitting this code path much in practice.  Moving this
> into the middle of fork and adding more depedencies does not seem like
> it will be that kind of straight forward.

I think your "list on the stack" was anything but straightforward,
considering how utterly broken the error handling of the patch was.

But hey., send a fixed patch and see how it looks. I think you'll end
up adding a lot of "goto signal_cleanup" cases.

          Linus