linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/13] signal/timer/event fds v7

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

Message-ID: <20070320001310.GA327@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:13:10 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/13] signal/timer/event fds v7 - signalfd core ...

On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> +struct signalfd_lockctx {
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +};

signalfd_lockctx is "private" to signalfd_lock/signalfd_unlock. But lk->sighand
is used only by signalfd_lock(). I'd suggest to remove it.

> +void signalfd_deliver(struct task_struct *tsk, int sig)
> +{
> +	struct sighand_struct *sighand = tsk->sighand;
> +	struct signalfd_ctx *ctx, *tmp;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(ctx, tmp, &sighand->sfdlist, lnk) {
> +		/*
> +		 * We use a negative signal value as a way to broadcast that the
> +		 * sighand has been orphaned, so that we can notify all the
> +		 * listeners about this. Remeber the ctx->sigmask is inverted,
> +		 * so if the user is interested in a signal, that corresponding
> +		 * bit will be zero.
> +		 */
> +		if (sig < 0) {
> +			if (ctx->tsk == tsk) {
> +				ctx->tsk = NULL;
> +				list_del_init(&ctx->lnk);
> +				wake_up(&ctx->wqh);
> +			}
> +		} else if (sig > 0) {
> +			if (!sigismember(&ctx->sigmask, sig))
> +				wake_up(&ctx->wqh);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}

I tried to avoid this comment, but can't help myself :)

This is a matter of taste, of course, but imho this is a classical "hide the
problem" example.

Why "else if (sig > 0)" ? sig can't be == 0. In my opinion, it is better to
add BUG_ON(!sig), but use just "else".

Oleg.

-
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/