On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:09:35PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:44:41PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 09/10, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote: > > > > > > --- a/kernel/fork.c > > > +++ b/kernel/fork.c > > > @@ -2562,6 +2562,9 @@ noinline static int > > > copy_clone_args_from_user(struct kernel_clone_args *kargs, > > > if (copy_from_user(&args, uargs, size)) > > > return -EFAULT; > > > > > > + if (unlikely(((unsigned int)args.exit_signal) != args.exit_signal)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > Hmm. Unless I am totally confused you found a serious bug... > > > > Without CLONE_THREAD/CLONE_PARENT copy_process() blindly does > > > > p->exit_signal = args->exit_signal; > > > > the valid_signal(sig) check in do_notify_parent() mostly saves us, but we > > must not allow child->exit_signal < 0, if nothing else this breaks > > thread_group_leader(). > > > > And afaics this patch doesn't fix this? I think we need the valid_signal() > > check... > > Thanks for sending this patch so quickly after our conversation > yesterday, Eugene! > We definitely want valid_signal() to verify the signal is ok. > > Eugene, can you please update the patch to use valid signal and keep it > as a separate patch from the cleanup and selftest patches?
I'll then pick this up quickly so we can get this in before 5.3 is out. Thanks! Christian
