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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87ilxqbamw.fsf@disp2133>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:33:43 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/20] signal: Implement force_fatal_sig

Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:43:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> This is interesting both because it makes force_sigsegv simpler and
>> because there are a couple of buggy places in the kernel that call
>> do_exit(SIGILL) or do_exit(SIGSYS) because there is no straight
>> forward way today for those places to simply force the exit of a
>> process with the chosen signal.  Creating force_fatal_sig allows
>> those places to be implemented with normal signal exits.
>
> I assume this is talking about seccomp()? :) Should a patch be included
> in this series to change those?

Actually it is not talking about seccomp.  As far as I can tell seccomp
is deliberately only killing a single thread when it calls do_exit.

I am thinking about places where we really want the entire process to
die and not just a single thread.  Please see the following changes
where I actually use force_fatal_sig.

Eric