linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/20] signal: Implement force_fatal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:05:21 -1000
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-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/20] signal: Implement force_fatal_sig

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 7:45 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> Add a simple helper force_fatal_sig that causes a signal to be
> delivered to a process as if the signal handler was set to SIG_DFL.
>
> Reimplement force_sigsegv based upon this new helper.

Can you just make the old force_sigsegv() go away? The odd special
casing of SIGSEGV was odd to begin with, I think everybody really just
wanted this new "force_fatal_sig()" and allow any signal - not making
SIGSEGV special.

Also, I think it should set SIGKILL in p->pending.signal or something
like that - because we want this to trigger fatal_signal_pending(),
don't we?

Right now fatal_signal_pending() is only true for SIGKILL, I think.

               Linus