linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] signal: sigprocmask: narrow the scope of ->sigloc

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:	Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:38:17 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] signal: sigprocmask: narrow the scope of ->sigloc

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:21:09 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> No functional changes, preparation to simplify the review of the next
> change.
> 
> 1. We can read current->block lockless, nobody else can ever change
> this mask.

Is it worth mentioning this in a comment? What is the reason that it's
OK? Is it because we only ever modify current->blocked and never
another task's blocked signals and that we never modify
current->blocked from within any form of interrupt context?

Some of the code in fs/{autofs4,coda} seems to do interesting things
with current->blocked, particularly the daemon stuff in autofs4.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/