[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 13/20] signal: Implement force_fatal_sig
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:33:43AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kees Cook <> writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:43:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> This is interesting both because it makes force_sigsegv simpler and
> >> because there are a couple of buggy places in the kernel that call
> >> do_exit(SIGILL) or do_exit(SIGSYS) because there is no straight
> >> forward way today for those places to simply force the exit of a
> >> process with the chosen signal. Creating force_fatal_sig allows
> >> those places to be implemented with normal signal exits.
> >
> > I assume this is talking about seccomp()? :) Should a patch be included
> > in this series to change those?
> Actually it is not talking about seccomp. As far as I can tell seccomp
> is deliberately only killing a single thread when it calls do_exit.

Okay, I wasn't entirely sure, but yes, seccomp wants to keep the "kill
only 1 thread" option, which is weird, but useful for the threaded
seccomp monitor case.

> I am thinking about places where we really want the entire process to
> die and not just a single thread. Please see the following changes
> where I actually use force_fatal_sig.

Yeah, I saw that now. Thanks!

Kees Cook

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-21 18:40    [W:0.053 / U:14.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site