mirror of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
synced 2025-08-04 16:25:34 +00:00
941edc5bf1
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 <krisman@collabora.com> said [1]: > ebiederm@xmission.com (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 <krisman@collabora.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87mtr6gdvi.fsf@collabora.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211020174406.17889-14-ebiederm@xmission.com Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| common.c | ||
| common.h | ||
| kvm.c | ||
| Makefile | ||
| syscall_user_dispatch.c | ||