linux-kernel - Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups

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: <87ftxvs2i0.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:39:35 +0200
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/15] signal/arm64: siginfo cleanups

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> This is the continuation of my work to sort out signaling of exceptions
>> with siginfo.  The old signal sending functions by taking a siginfo
>> argument resulted in their callers having to deal with the fiddly nature
>> of siginfo directly.  In small numbers of callers this is not a problem
>> but in the number of callers in the kernel this resulted in cases
>> where fields were not initialized or improperly initialized before
>> being passed to userspace.
>> 
>> To avoid having to worry about those issues I have added new signal
>> sending functions that each deal wit a different siginfo case.  When
>> using these functions there is no room for the fiddly nature of siginfo
>> to cause mistakes.
>> 
>> This is my set of changes to update arm64 to use those functions.
>> Along with some refactoring so those functions can be cleanly used.
>> 
>> Folks please review and double check me.  I think I have kept these
>> changes simple and obviously correct but I am human and mess up
>> sometimes.
>
> Nice clean-up, thanks. I started reviewing the patches, I should finish
> by tomorrow (I also applied them locally to give some testing).
>
>> After these patches have had a chance to be reviewed I plan to merge
>> them by my siginfo tree.  If you would rather take them in the arm64
>> tree let me know.   All of the prerequisites should have been merged
>> through Linus's tree several releases ago.
>
> Either way works for me. There is a trivial conflict in
> force_signal_inject() with the arm64 for-next/core tree so I could as
> well put them on top of this branch and send them during the 4.20
> merging window.

As long as there is a trivial conflict I would like to keep everything
in one tree.

There is a following patchset that manages to reduce the size of struct
siginfo in the kernel that I have also posted for review.    With
everything in one tree I can make that change now, and just cross it off
my list of things to worry about.

Eric