linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] kselftest/arm64: Add a test for vfork() with GCS

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6aa6e38a-c874-45ac-b2bd-c876cdd9c8a9@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 12:19:01 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] kselftest/arm64: Add a test for vfork() with GCS

On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 11:39:14AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 01:29:46PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > +		exit(ret);

> Should this be _exit() instead? IIRC exit() does some clean-ups which
> are not safe in the vfork'ed child.

This test is written to nolibc so that we don't get any of that libc
level stuff, but yeah it would be a bit more correct.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)