linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] fix missed SIGCONT cases

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

Date:	Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] fix missed SIGCONT cases

Have you observed an actual problem?  I don't think the "race" you seem to
be concerned about is a problem at all.

The comment refers to the necessary atomicity of posting the signal along
with doing the wakeups.  Those are done together with the siglock held.
It does not matter that the siglock was dropped and reacquired before
there.  All that matters is that we hold the siglock continuously from
before the wake_up_state calls made in handle_stop_signal through until
after the signal-posting done by its callers.

Can you enumerate the specific sequence of events that would result in
error under the current code?

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/