SA_IMMUTABLE and the hazards of messing with signals
SA_IMMUTABLE and the hazards of messing with signals
Posted Dec 18, 2021 21:42 UTC (Sat) by matthias (subscriber, #94967)In reply to: SA_IMMUTABLE and the hazards of messing with signals by NYKevin
Parent article: SA_IMMUTABLE and the hazards of messing with signals
> The why is that do_exit as an interface needs to be refactored.
>
> As it exists right now "do_exit" is bad enough that on a couple of older
> architectures do_exit in a random location results in being able to
> read/write the kernel stack using ptrace.
>
> So to addresses the issues I need to get everything that really
> shouldn't be using do_exit to use something else.
Also it seems that there is indeed a difference: The "fake signal and do_exit()"-approach only terminates a single thread, however the signal should bring down the whole process.
Posted Dec 23, 2021 4:51 UTC (Thu)
by mmirate (guest, #143985)
[Link]
Ah, so *that* is why my multithreaded program isn't working on new kernels anymore. Whenever each thread finished its assigned work, it would clean itself up by committing a seccomp violation. Very annoying I have to change the program now. I'm going to complain on the mailing list.
/s
SA_IMMUTABLE and the hazards of messing with signals