linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: trace_signal_deliver when signal_group

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AF4D908CC0E2A24EB308A26962C8C3BDEB1A17@DGGEMI530-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:44:31 +0000
From:   weizhenliang <weizhenliang@...wei.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
CC:     "ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "colona@...sta.com" <colona@...sta.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "deepa.kernel@...il.com" <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: trace_signal_deliver when
 signal_group_exit

On 04/24, Christian Brauner wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:52:38PM +0800, Zhenliang Wei wrote:
>> 
>> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
>
>I think we're supposed to use more Reviewed-bys so feel free (or Andrew) to change this to:
>
>Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>

Ok, I will change this in patch v5.

>> --- a/kernel/signal.c
>> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
>> @@ -2441,6 +2441,8 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
>>  	if (signal_group_exit(signal)) {
>>  		ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
>>  		sigdelset(&current->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
>> +		trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
>> +			&sighand->action[signr - 1]);
>
>Hm, sorry for being the really nitpicky person here. Just for the sake of consistency how about we do either:
>
>+		trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
>+			&sighand->action[SIGKILL - 1]);
>
>or
>
>+		trace_signal_deliver(signr, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
>+			&sighand->action[signr - 1]);
>
>I'm not going to argue about this though. Can just also leave it as is.

Thank you for your comments and learn from rigorous people! I will take:

+		trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
+			&sighand->action[SIGKILL - 1]);

Any other suggestions about the patch?

Wei