On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:33:43AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:43:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> 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? > > Actually it is not talking about seccomp. As far as I can tell seccomp > is deliberately only killing a single thread when it calls do_exit. Okay, I wasn't entirely sure, but yes, seccomp wants to keep the "kill only 1 thread" option, which is weird, but useful for the threaded seccomp monitor case. > I am thinking about places where we really want the entire process to > die and not just a single thread. Please see the following changes > where I actually use force_fatal_sig. Yeah, I saw that now. Thanks! -- Kees Cook
