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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 19:10:29 -0800 From: Ivan Delalande <colona@...sta.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:11:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:53:08 -0800 Ivan Delalande <colona@...sta.com> wrote: > > --- a/fs/exec.c > > +++ b/fs/exec.c > > @@ -1660,7 +1660,12 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) { > > /* we got to flush_old_exec() and failed after it */ > > read_unlock(&binfmt_lock); > > - force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current); > > + if (!fatal_signal_pending(current)) { > > + if (print_fatal_signals) > > + pr_info("load_binary() failed: %d\n", > > + retval); > > Should we be using print_fatal_signal() here? I don't think so, the force_sigsegv() already ensures it will be called from get_signal() when the signal is handled, and so the process information will be printed then. > > + force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current); > > + } > > return retval; > > } > > if (retval != -ENOEXEC || !bprm->file) { Thanks, -- Ivan Delalande Arista Networks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists