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 09:40:53 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Oleg Nesterov <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>
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 <> 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