linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] inline __fatal_signal

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:	Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] inline __fatal_signal_pending

> In fact, I think we do not need 2 helpers. I mean, fatal_signal_pending()
> does not need the signal_pending() check, we can just rename
> __fatal_signal_pending() to fatal_signal_pending(). Should be another
> change of course.

Right, I thought of that too.  I wasn't entirely sure that signal_pending()
vs test_tsk_thread_flag() doesn't have some important barrier-like ordering
effect that just the unlocked sigismember() check wouldn't have.  But if not,
fatal_signal_pending() indeed really only needs to be that one instruction.


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/