linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] hrtimer_nanosleep: use -EINTR, not -ERESTARTNOHAND

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:17 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...ru>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] hrtimer_nanosleep: use -EINTR, not -ERESTARTNOHAND

On 02/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > hrtimer_nanosleep:
> > 
> > 	/* Absolute timers do not update the rmtp value and restart: */
> > 	return -ERESTARTNOHAND;
> > 
> > This is not right, -ERESTARTNOHAND means we will do restart if there is no
> > in fact pending signal, and worse, this restart will use the same unchanged
> > "__user *rmtp" parameter.
> 
> -ERESTARTNOHAND is safe here. We want to restart the timer.

Ah. I was greatly confused by the comment, it says "do not ... restart",
now I understand what this _actually_ means.

And yes, I was wrong. If restart is wanted, it is safe to use the original
*rqtp, the timer is HRTIMER_MODE_ABS.

Thanks Thomas!

Andrew, please ignore this patch.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/