linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] Use mutex instead of semaphore in the Host AP driver

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: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707310133230.17287@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:41:28 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
	Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias.kaehlcke@...il.com>,
	linville@...driver.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Use mutex instead of semaphore in the Host AP
 driver



On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:09:38 +0200
> Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday 30 July 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sunday 29 July 2007 23:34, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > > >  
> > > > > @@ -902,7 +902,7 @@ static int hfa384x_set_rid(struct net_device *dev, u16 rid, void *buf, int len)
> > > > >  	/* RID len in words and +1 for rec.rid */
> > > > >  	rec.len = cpu_to_le16(len / 2 + len % 2 + 1);
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	res = down_interruptible(&local->rid_bap_sem);
> > > > > +	res = mutex_lock_interruptible(&local->rid_bap_mtx);
> > > > >  	if (res)
> > > > >  		return res;
> > > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Is res returned to userspace? If yes, that's not right.
> > > 
> > > Yup, that's not right.
> > > 
> > > > On a interrupted mutex allocation you should return
> > > > -ERESTARTSYS to userspace.
> > > 
> > > Nope, userspace must not see ERESTARTSYS (I /think/ this is the third
> > > time I'm participating in this exact same discussion :-)
> > > 
> > > If the return would be caught by a previous in-kernel caller in the
> > > call chain, ERESTARTSYS is okay and it could try to restart the
> > > operation. However, if the return goes unfiltered directly to
> > > userspace, EINTR is the correct choice.
> > 
> > Last time I submitted a patch which returned EINTR to userspace,
> > people came and said it was wrong. It was said that we must
> > return ERESTARTSYS to the libc and the libc will convert that
> > into either EINTR or automatically restart it immediately.
> > (You can set that in the sigaction stuff).
> > 
> > So either the one who told me that last time was wrong, or you. :)
> > 
> > Andrew? I think you were involved in this discussion I mentioned.
> > (It was about the HW-RNG chardev, but that doesn't matter here).
> 
> who, me?  signals?  Danger.
> 
> yes, I think ERESTARTSYS is correct.  That gets converted to -EINTR by the
> arch's signal handling code (not by glibc) just before we return to
> userspace.

Hmm? But the question is whether which of EINTR or ERESTARTSYS is correct
to be returned to userspace (so, EINTR).

But now that you pointed to the automagic ERESTARTSYS-to-EINTR conversion
in the arch/ code, I think there's no problem returning ERESTARTSYS from
syscalls in generic kernel code when interrupted by a signal either (if
all arch's do that conversion).

Probably makes sense to change down_interruptible() and
mutex_lock_interruptible() to return ERESTARTSYS (and not EINTR) in
that case. wait_event_interruptible() is already ERESTARTSYS, I see ...


Satyam
-
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/