linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: __fatal_signal_pending() should also check PF

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: <20220727175538.GC18822@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 19:55:39 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: __fatal_signal_pending() should also check
 PF_EXITING

On 07/27, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 08:54:59PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Oh - I didn't either - checking the sigkill in shared signals *seems*
> > legit if they can be put there - but since you posted the new patch I
> > assumed his reasoning was clear to you.  I know Eric's busy, cc:ing Oleg
> > for his interpretation too.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

Cough... I don't know what can I say except I personally dislike this
patch no matter what ;)

And I do not understand how can this patch help. OK, a single-threaded
PF_EXITING task sleeps in TASK_KILLABLE. send_signal_locked() won't
wake it up anyway?

I must have missed something.

Oleg.