You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
exit/syscall_user_dispatch: Send ordinary signals on failure
Use force_fatal_sig instead of calling do_exit directly. This ensures
the ordinary signal handling path gets invoked, core dumps as
appropriate get created, and for multi-threaded processes all of the
threads are terminated not just a single thread.
When asked Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <[email protected]> said [1]:
> [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) asked:
>
> > Why does do_syscal_user_dispatch call do_exit(SIGSEGV) and
> > do_exit(SIGSYS) instead of force_sig(SIGSEGV) and force_sig(SIGSYS)?
> >
> > Looking at the code these cases are not expected to happen, so I would
> > be surprised if userspace depends on any particular behaviour on the
> > failure path so I think we can change this.
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> There is not really a good reason, and the use case that originated the
> feature doesn't rely on it.
>
> Unless I'm missing yet another problem and others correct me, I think
> it makes sense to change it as you described.
>
> > Is using do_exit in this way something you copied from seccomp?
>
> I'm not sure, its been a while, but I think it might be just that. The
> first prototype of SUD was implemented as a seccomp mode.
If at some point it becomes interesting we could relax
"force_fatal_sig(SIGSEGV)" to instead say
"force_sig_fault(SIGSEGV, SEGV_MAPERR, sd->selector)".
I avoid doing that in this patch to avoid making it possible
to catch currently uncatchable signals.
Cc: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]>
0 commit comments