linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Consolidate send_sigqueue and send_group

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: <20080228153655.GC11484@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:36:55 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Consolidate send_sigqueue and send_group_sigqueue

On 02/28, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> That code dates from the original introduction of those two functions.
> I can't see any reason why those ever had swapped order of the two checks.
> I think it must have just been sloppy coding in the original work.
> 
> I'm not clear on how the already-queued case could ever happen.  Do we
> really need that check at all?  It shouldn't be possible for the timer to
> be firing when it's already queued, because it won't have been reloaded.
> It only reloads via do_schedule_next_timer after it's dequeued, or because
> a 1 return value said it never was queued.

This is true for the posix timers, but posix cpu timers case is different.
Note the run_posix_cpu_timers()->cpu_timer_fire().

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/