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  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:	Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:06:54 -0600
From:	Will Drewry <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 08/12] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
> On 02/27, Will Drewry wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
>> > On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> To ensure that SIGSYS delivery occurs on return from the triggering
>> >> system call, SIGSYS is added to the SYNCHRONOUS_MASK macro.
>> >
>> > Hmm. Can't understand... please help.
>> >
>> >>  #define SYNCHRONOUS_MASK \
>> >>       (sigmask(SIGSEGV) | sigmask(SIGBUS) | sigmask(SIGILL) | \
>> >> -      sigmask(SIGTRAP) | sigmask(SIGFPE))
>> >> +      sigmask(SIGTRAP) | sigmask(SIGFPE) | sigmask(SIGSYS))
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> > SYNCHRONOUS_MASK just tells dequeue_signal() "pick them first".
>> > This is needed to make sure that the handler for, say SIGSEGV,
>> > can use ucontext->ip as a faulting addr.
>> I think that Roland covered this.  (Since the syscall_rollback was
>> called it's nice to let our handler get first go.)
> OK, except I do not really understand the "our handler get first go".

Err I meant "gets to go first".

> Suppose SIGSYS "races" with the pending SIGHUP. With this change
> the caller for SIGHUP will be called first. But yes, setup_frame()
> will be called for SIGSYS first. Hopefully this is what you want.

I believe it is.  I just want ucontext_t to be properly populate since
the registers were just rolled back for it.

>> > But seccomp adds info->si_call_addr, this looks unneeded.
>> True enough.  I can drop it.
> Hmm. I meant, the change in SYNCHRONOUS_MASK looks unneeded. Please
> keep ->si_call_addr, it is much more convenient than ucontext_t in
> userspace.

Sorry for the confusion

>> It'd only be useful if the SIGSYS wasn't
>> being forced and the signal was being handled without ucontext_t
>> access.
> No, force_ doesn't make any difference in this sense...

I guess I was thinking about users of signalfd wanting the call site
but force_ avoids it being blockable so that seems largely irrelevant
at present.

> In short, the patch looks fine to me, but if you resend it may be
> you can update the changelog.

Thanks! I will try to clarify the changelog.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists