[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878rymbags.fsf@disp2133>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:37:23 -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>,
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/20] exit/syscall_user_dispatch: Send ordinary signals on failure
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:44:00PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Use force_fatal_sig instead of calling do_exit directly. This ensures
>> the ordinary signal handling path gets invoked, core dumps as
>> appropriate get created, and for multi-threaded processes all of the
>> threads are terminated not just a single thread.
>
> Yeah, looks good. Should be no visible behavior change.
It is observable in that an entire multi-threaded process gets
terminated instead of a single thread. But since these events should
be handling of extra-ordinary events I don't expect there is anyone
who wants to have a thread of their process survive.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists