linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix kill(-1,s) returning 0 on 0 kills

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]

Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 12:56:38 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Petr Skocik <pskocik@...il.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix kill(-1,s) returning 0 on 0 kills

On 11/23, Petr Skocik wrote:
>
> On 11/23/22 11:30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >But I fail to understand the /*either all 0 or all -EINVAL*/ comment above..
> >
> >Oleg.
> >
> 
> Thanks. The comment is explained in my reply to Kees Cook:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/11/22/1327.
> I felt like making it because without it to me it suspiciously looks like
> the
> `if ( err != -EPERM) ret = err;` (or `if ( err != -EPERM) retval = err;` in
> the original) could be masking
> a non-EPERM failure with a later success, but it isn't because in this
> context, all the non-EPERM return vals should either ALL be 0 or ALL be
> -EINVAL.

Ah, now I see what did you mean, thanks.

Well, you are probably right, __send_signal_locked() won't fail even if
__sigqueue_alloc() fails, because si_code = SI_USER.

Not sure we should rely on this, but I won't argue.

Oleg.