On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 08/10, Kees Cook wrote:
This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
now that ptrace
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 08/10, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
>>> now that ptrace was reordered to happen after ptrace. The short version is
Thanks!
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > The bug happens because when __seccomp_filter() detects
> > fatal_signal_pending(), it calls do_exit() without dequeuing the fatal
> > signal. When do_exit() sends the PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT
>
> I _never_ understood what PTRACE_EVENT_EX
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/10, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
>> now that ptrace was reordered to happen after ptrace. The short version is
>> that seccomp should not attempt to call do_exit() whil
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
>> now that ptrace was reordered to happen after ptrace. The short version is
>> that seccomp should not attemp
On 08/10, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
> now that ptrace was reordered to happen after ptrace. The short version is
> that seccomp should not attempt to call do_exit() while fatal signals are
> pending under a tracer. This was needle
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
> now that ptrace was reordered to happen after ptrace. The short version is
> that seccomp should not attempt to call do_exit() while fatal signals are
> pending under a t
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
> now that ptrace was reordered to happen after ptrace. The short version is
> that seccomp should not attempt to call do_exit() while fatal signals are
> pending under a t
This fixes a ptrace vs fatal pending signals bug as manifested in seccomp
now that ptrace was reordered to happen after ptrace. The short version is
that seccomp should not attempt to call do_exit() while fatal signals are
pending under a tracer. This was needlessly paranoid. Instead, the syscall
c
9 matches
Mail list logo