From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Shentino <shentino@gmail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:40:18 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyzGenPNnKxf_PnAWVa1tZP294XUrhAVXgi0EuKm1x=vA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130216000435.GY4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 03:12:30PM -0800, Shentino wrote:
>> > + send_sig(SIGSEGV, current, 0);
>>
>> This might be a stupid miscue on my part, but shouldn't it be
>> force_sig instead of send_sig?
>>
>> I've got this crazy hunch that having SEGV masked might muck something up.
>
> How would you manage to have it masked at that point? setup_new_exec()
> is inevitable after success of flush_old_exec() and it will do
> flush_signal_handlers() for us.
I have to agree with Shentino on this one: it's entirely possible that
send_sig() is always equivalent to force_sig() in this circumstance,
but rather than depend on that kind of non-local subtlety, we should
just make it obvious. This is what "force_sig()" exists for - making
it clear that we punch through any signal handlers. Whether such a
signal handler can exist or not is kind of immaterial.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-16 0:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-14 5:36 [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures Al Viro
2013-02-15 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-02-15 21:59 ` Al Viro
2013-02-15 23:12 ` Shentino
2013-02-16 0:04 ` Al Viro
2013-02-16 0:38 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2013-02-16 0:38 ` Shentino
2013-02-16 0:46 ` Shentino
2013-02-16 1:50 ` Al Viro
2013-02-16 2:20 ` Al Viro
2013-02-16 7:20 ` Raymond Jennings
2013-02-16 7:43 ` Al Viro
2013-02-16 8:13 ` Raymond Jennings
2013-02-16 0:40 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2013-02-16 1:22 ` Al Viro
2013-02-16 1:44 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+55aFyzGenPNnKxf_PnAWVa1tZP294XUrhAVXgi0EuKm1x=vA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shentino@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).