linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] signal_struct->count must die, initial changes

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, 17 Mar 2010 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] signal_struct->count must die, initial changes

> signal_struct->count in its current form must die.

Agreed.  This series
Acked-by: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>

> 	- otoh, we really need to make task->signal refcountable,
> 	  just look at the extremely ugly task_rq_unlock_wait()
> 	  called from __exit_signals().

Another of many good reasons for...

> 	- we should change the lifetime rules for task->signal,
> 	  it should be pinned to task_struct. We have a lot of
> 	  code which can be simplified after that.

Yes, and sighand too.  I think there will be quite a torrent of cleanup we
can do after that.

Remember too that we should really change de_thread() altogether.  It has
long-standing signal-losing races that we should fix.  Changing the
lifetime rules may complicate that, or not.  But they'll tie in together,
and when we do that we'll replace the notify_count again with something
else entirely.

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/