linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] Removing SEND_SIG

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809081302350.1402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Sat, 8 Sep 2018 13:03:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Removing SEND_SIG_FORCED

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
 
> SEND_SIG_FORCED has two functions.  It forces a pid namespace init to
> receive a signal it would ordinarily ignore, and it causes a siginfo to
> not be allocated for a signal.
> 
> This patchset makes __send_signal a little bit smarter so that it can
> detect when to apply these optimizations and the senders of signals
> don't have to worry about them.
> 
> The coupling of forcing a signal to the pid namespace init and not
> allocating siginfo resulted in serveral minor bugs where a signal
> sent by the kernel was marked SI_USER suggesting another userspace
> process sent that signal.  I have cc'd linux-api in case anyone cares
> about these minor userspace visible differences.
> 
> Unless someone notices a bug I intend to merge these changes through my
> tree during the next merge window.   While there are numerous fixes here
> none of them appear to be the kind that fixes real world problems so I
> don't see any urgency here.
> 
> Please look read and send my your review.  I will be out for about a
> week so I will address any comments when I get back.

Went through it carefuly and could not spot anything. Great work!

Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>