Thread (2 messages) 2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-10-21

Re: [PATCH 13/20] signal: Implement force_fatal_sig

From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-21 16:39:49
Also in: lkml

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:33:43AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Kees Cook [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:43:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted
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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help