Re: [PATCH 8/9] signal/task_exit: Use start_task_exit in place of do_exit
From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-26 05:56:30
Also in:
linux-alpha, linux-m68k, lkml
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Reuse start_task_exit_locked to implement start_task_exit. Simplify the exit logic by having all exits go through get_signal. This simplifies the analysis of syncrhonization during exit and gurantees a full set of registers will be available for ptrace to examine at PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT. Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <redacted> --- include/linux/sched/signal.h | 1 + kernel/exit.c | 4 +++- kernel/seccomp.c | 2 +- kernel/signal.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/sched/signal.h b/include/linux/sched/signal.h index a958381ba4a9..3f4e69c019b7 100644 --- a/include/linux/sched/signal.h +++ b/include/linux/sched/signal.h@@ -430,6 +430,7 @@ static inline void ptrace_signal_wake_up(struct task_struct *t, bool resume) void start_group_exit(int exit_code); void start_task_exit_locked(struct task_struct *task, int exit_code); +void start_task_exit(int exit_code); void task_join_group_stop(struct task_struct *task);diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c index 635f434122b7..51e0c82b3f7d 100644 --- a/kernel/exit.c +++ b/kernel/exit.c@@ -889,7 +889,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete_and_exit); SYSCALL_DEFINE1(exit, int, error_code) { - do_exit((error_code&0xff)<<8); + start_task_exit((error_code&0xff)<<8); + /* get_signal will call do_exit */ + return 0; }diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c index b1c06fd1b205..e0c4c123a8bf 100644 --- a/kernel/seccomp.c +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c@@ -1248,7 +1248,7 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd, force_sig_seccomp(this_syscall, data, true); } else { if (action == SECCOMP_RET_KILL_THREAD) - do_exit(SIGSYS); + start_task_exit(SIGSYS); else start_group_exit(SIGSYS); }
Looks good, yeah.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c index afbc001220dd..63fda9b6bbf9 100644 --- a/kernel/signal.c +++ b/kernel/signal.c@@ -1424,6 +1424,18 @@ void start_task_exit_locked(struct task_struct *task, int exit_code) } } +void start_task_exit(int exit_code) +{ + struct task_struct *task = current; + if (!fatal_signal_pending(task)) { + struct sighand_struct *const sighand = task->sighand; + spin_lock_irq(&sighand->siglock); + if (!fatal_signal_pending(current))
efficiency nit: "task" instead of "current" here, yes?
+ start_task_exit_locked(task, exit_code);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sighand->siglock);
+ }
+}
+
struct sighand_struct *__lock_task_sighand(struct task_struct *tsk,
unsigned long *flags)
{
--
2.20.1-- Kees Cook