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]
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:39:44 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Oleg Nesterov <>,
        Al Viro <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/20] signal: Implement force_fatal_sig

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:33:43AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <> 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.

Okay, I wasn't entirely sure, but yes, seccomp wants to keep the "kill
only 1 thread" option, which is weird, but useful for the threaded
seccomp monitor case.

> 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.

Yeah, I saw that now. Thanks!

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists