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
8 matches
Mail list logo