linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

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]

Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:20:22 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 6:08 PM Bernd Edlinger
<bernd.edlinger@...mail.de> wrote:
>
> I added the BIG FAT WARNNIG comments as a mitigation for that.
> Did you like those comments?

No.

What's the point olf saying "THIS CODE IS GARBAGE" and then expecting
that to make it ok?

No,m that doesn't make it ok. It just means that it should have been
done differently.

> Yes, exactly, the point is the caller is expected to call wait in that
> scenario, otherwise the -EAGAIN just repeats forever, that is an API
> change, yes, but something unavoidable, and the patch tries hard to
> limit it to cases where the live-lock or pseudo-dead-lock is unavoidable
> anyway.

I'm getting really fed up with your insistence on that KNOWN BROKEN
garbage test-case.

It's shit. The test-case is wrong. I've told you before.

Your patch as-is breaks other cases that are *not* wrong in the kernel
currently, and that don't have test-cases because they JustWork(tm).

The livelock isn't interesting. The test-case that shows it is pure
garbage, and is written wrong.

IF that test-case hadn't been buggy in the first place, it would have
had ignored its child (or had a handler for SIGCHLD), and not
livelocked.

                Linus