Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/6] signal: Fail sigqueueinfo if si_signo != sig

2018-10-04 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei Vagin writes: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 07:19:02PM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> The kernel needs to validate that the contents of struct siginfo make >> sense as siginfo is copied into the kernel, so that the proper union >> members can be put in the appropriate locations. The field

Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/6] signal: Fail sigqueueinfo if si_signo != sig

2018-10-04 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrei Vagin writes: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 07:19:02PM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> The kernel needs to validate that the contents of struct siginfo make >> sense as siginfo is copied into the kernel, so that the proper union >> members can be put in the appropriate locations. The field

Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 2/6] signal: Fail sigqueueinfo if si_signo != sig

2018-10-04 Thread Andrei Vagin
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 07:19:02PM +0200, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > The kernel needs to validate that the contents of struct siginfo make > sense as siginfo is copied into the kernel, so that the proper union > members can be put in the appropriate locations. The field si_signo > is a fundamental

[REVIEW][PATCH 2/6] signal: Fail sigqueueinfo if si_signo != sig

2018-09-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
The kernel needs to validate that the contents of struct siginfo make sense as siginfo is copied into the kernel, so that the proper union members can be put in the appropriate locations. The field si_signo is a fundamental part of that validation. As such changing the contents of si_signo after