Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:24:22 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/20] signal: Implement force_fatal_sig
Message-ID: <202110210923.F5BE43C@keescook>
References: <87y26nmwkb.fsf@disp2133>
 <20211020174406.17889-13-ebiederm@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211020174406.17889-13-ebiederm@xmission.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:43:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Add a simple helper force_fatal_sig that causes a signal to be
> delivered to a process as if the signal handler was set to SIG_DFL.
> 
> Reimplement force_sigsegv based upon this new helper.  This fixes
> force_sigsegv so that when it forces the default signal handler
> to be used the code now forces the signal to be unblocked as well.
> 
> Reusing the tested logic in force_sig_info_to_task that was built for
> force_sig_seccomp this makes the implementation trivial.
> 
> 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?

> 
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook