linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] do_sigaction: don't worry about signal

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: <20070822094325.GF1684@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:43:25 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] do_sigaction: don't worry about signal_pending()

On 20-08-2007 18:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> do_sigaction() returns -ERESTARTNOINTR if signal_pending(). The comment says:
> 
> 	* If there might be a fatal signal pending on multiple
> 	* threads, make sure we take it before changing the action.
> 	
> I think this is not needed. We should only worry about SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT case,
> bit it implies a pending SIGKILL which can't be cleared by do_sigaction.

Isn't it for optimization e.g., to skip this 'do while' loop below for
such multiple threads, which would get SIGKILL or SIGSTOP anyway?

Regards,
Jarek P.
-
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/