[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202110210940.3BBA18AA@keescook>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:40:53 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
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
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:37:23AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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.
Right -- sorry, I should have said that more clearly: "Besides the
single thread death now taking the whole process, there's not behavior
change (i.e. the signal delivery)." Still looks good to me.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists