linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] signal: Make individual tasks exiting a first class concept.

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: <87a6nf54hc.fsf@disp2133>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 16:37:19 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] signal: Make individual tasks exiting a first class concept.

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:03 PM Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>
>> Implement start_task_exit_locked and rewrite the de_thread logic
>> in exec using it.
>>
>> Calling start_task_exit_locked is equivalent to asyncrhonously
>> calling exit(2) aka pthread_exit on a task.
>
> Ok, so this is the patch that makes me go "Yeah, this seems to all go together".
>
> The whole "start_exit()" thing seemed fairly sane as an interesting
> concept to the whole ptrace notification thing, but this one actually
> made me think it makes conceptual sense and how we had exactly that
> "start exit asynchronously" case already in zap_other_threads().
>
> So doing that zap_other_threads() as that async exit makes me just
> thin kthat yes, this series is the right thing, because it not only
> cleans up the ptrace condition, it makes sense in this entirely
> unrelated area too.
>
> So I think I'm convinced. I'd like Oleg in particular to Ack this
> series, and Al to look it over, but I do think this is the right
> direction.

Thanks.

It took a bit of exploration and playing with things to get here,
but I had the same sense.

Next round I will see if I can clean up the patches a bit more.

Eric