[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190910124440.GA25647@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:44:41 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fork: fail on non-zero higher 32 bits of args.exit_signal
On 09/10, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -2562,6 +2562,9 @@ noinline static int copy_clone_args_from_user(struct kernel_clone_args *kargs,
> if (copy_from_user(&args, uargs, size))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> + if (unlikely(((unsigned int)args.exit_signal) != args.exit_signal))
> + return -EINVAL;
Hmm. Unless I am totally confused you found a serious bug...
Without CLONE_THREAD/CLONE_PARENT copy_process() blindly does
p->exit_signal = args->exit_signal;
the valid_signal(sig) check in do_notify_parent() mostly saves us, but we
must not allow child->exit_signal < 0, if nothing else this breaks
thread_group_leader().
And afaics this patch doesn't fix this? I think we need the valid_signal()
check...
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists