lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 3/7] kernel: Implement selective syscall userspace redirection
Date
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> 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.

> The reason I am asking is that by using do_exit you deprive userspace
> of the change to catch the signal handler and try and fix things.
>
> Also by using do_exit only a single thread of a multi-thread application
> is terminated which seems wrong.
>
> I am asking because I am going through the callers of do_exit so I can
> refactor things and clean things up and this use just looks wrong.

Thanks,

--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-01 19:10    [W:0.074 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site