linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] exec: Don't set group_exit

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: <CAHk-=wiiwWj9CKYvdKqLtOivozqwowcGXxQL6yhPC+euHa5j2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:32:00 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] exec: Don't set group_exit_task during a coredump

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:24 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you think the test sig->group_exit_task != NULL should be removed
> for the commit to make sense?

Because that's what your commit message _said_.

It still implies that with your changed language.

And honestly, wouldn't it be a lot more understandable if the state
was tracked with a single variable? The whole point of this series has
been "clarify exec".

So let's clarify it. There aren't that many places that set
sig->group_exit_task (whether renamed or not). How about we just
change _all_ of those to set 'sig->flags', and really clarify things?

                 Linus