linux-kernel - Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706221710150.3880@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>
cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:

> You could just get rid of the process/sighand/whatever reference
> entirely and just make reads on a signalfd always dequeue signals for
> the current thread.

Duh?! ...


> You'd lose the ability to pass signalfds around to other processes, but
> I'm not convinced that is even useful. (But I'm sure somebody smarter
> than me has a valid use case and would love to share :-)

Wasn't it you that bitched (just a few days ago) because multiple threads 
could not use the same signalfd and they (by your initial thought) had to 
create one per thread?



- Davide


-
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/