Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:58:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:58:36 -0400 Received: from crack.them.org ([65.125.64.184]:31753 "EHLO crack.them.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:58:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:04:36 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alan Cox Cc: S Vamsikrishna , Mark Gross , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch] thread-aware coredumps, 2.5.43-C3 Message-ID: <20021021160436.GA31985@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alan Cox , S Vamsikrishna , Mark Gross , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200210081627.g98GRZP18285@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20021017164040.GA12608@nevyn.them.org> <1035210573.28189.127.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20021021145432.GA22470@nevyn.them.org> <1035216987.27309.195.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1035216987.27309.195.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1753 Lines: 35 On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:16:27PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 15:54, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 03:29:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 17:40, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > My only problem with this is that you're waiting for all threads by > > > > SIGKILLing them. If a process vforks or clones, and then the child > > > > crashes, the parent will receive a SIGKILL - iff we are dumping core. > > > > That's a change in behavior that seems a bit too arbitrary to me. > > > > > > It also has a security impact when you construct a fork/fork/crash > > > sequence that sends sigkill to the module loader or a kernel thread > > > during start up that has not yet dropped its association with the user > > > code. > > > > Why? It's not like userspace couldn't send that SIGKILL on its own, > > right? If it's still killable it had better be safe to do so. > > The kernel side isnt, the signal handling isnt always "normal". Its the > extreme case of the problem not the general one. Fixing the vfork/clone > crash is doable, and one approach would be to solve the problem by > saying "if you claim to be a thread group with the new style flags you > get to be killed as a group and dumped as a group", with old stuff > behaving like it always did before. Which is what I'm trying to avoid... most of the world isn't using CLONE_THREAD yet. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/