linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/17] writeback: quit throttling when signal pending

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:	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:21:16 +1000
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] writeback: quit throttling when signal pending

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:55:29 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 04:46:54AM +0800, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:49:50 +0800
> > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > This allows quick response to Ctrl-C etc. for impatient users.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/page-writeback.c |    3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-09-09 16:01:14.000000000 +0800
> > > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-09-09 16:02:27.000000000 +0800
> > > @@ -553,6 +553,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > >  		__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > >  		io_schedule_timeout(pause);
> > >  
> > > +		if (signal_pending(current))
> > > +			break;
> > > +
> > 
> > Given the patch description,  I think you might want "fatal_signal_pending()"
> > here ???
> 
> __fatal_signal_pending() tests SIGKILL only, while the one often used
> and need more quick responding is SIGINT..
>

I thought that at first too....  but I don't think that is the case.

In kernel/signal.c, in complete_signal, we have
  if (sig_fatal() ...)
           ....
		sigaddset(&t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);

where sig_fatal is

#define sig_fatal(t, signr) \
	(!siginmask(signr, SIG_KERNEL_IGNORE_MASK|SIG_KERNEL_STOP_MASK) && \
	 (t)->sighand->action[(signr)-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)


so (if I'm reading the code correctly), if a process receives a signal for
which the handler is SIG_DFL, then SIGKILL is set in the pending mask, so
__fatal_signal_pending will be true.

So it fatal_signal_pending should catch any signal that will cause the
process to exit.  I assume that it what you want...

NeilBrown
--
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/