| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200707232350.50208.rjw@sisk.pl> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:50:49 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: "Agarwal, Lomesh" <lomesh.agarwal@...el.com> Cc: nigel@...pend2.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: which signal is sent to freeze process? On Monday, 23 July 2007 22:57, Agarwal, Lomesh wrote: > Why do you need try_to_freeze in below patch? Shouldn't > !freezing(current) checking is enough? The try_to_freeze() is needed so that the process doesn't block the freezing of tasks (it is supposed to call refrigerator() as soon as reasonably possible when freezing(current) is true). Alternatively, we might return 0 from do_sys_poll() if do_poll() has returned 0 and both signal_pending(current) and freezing(current) are true. Below is a patch that implements that. Could you please try it? Greetings, Rafael --- fs/select.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/select.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1.orig/fs/select.c +++ linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/select.c @@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ int do_sys_poll(struct pollfd __user *uf walk = walk->next; } err = fdcount; - if (!fdcount && signal_pending(current)) + if (!fdcount && (signal_pending(current) && !freezing(current))) err = -EINTR; out_fds: walk = head; - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists