linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] posix timers: don't discard the signal if the timer was explicitly destroyed

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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Austin Clements <amdragon+kernelbugzilla@....edu>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] posix timers: don't discard the signal if the timer was explicitly destroyed

> I am not sure this patch is really needed, please review.

I don't think this is worth doing.

> The previous patch adds the user-visible change. It is not clear to me why
> should we cancel the pending signal sent by the timer after timer_delete().
> Suppose the signal is blocked, pending, the user checks sys_rt_sigpending(),
> destroys the timer and then doesn't see the signal.

So?  POSIX says it's unspecified what happens to such a signal, so an
application can't rely on it one way or the other.  I don't see any reason
to complicate it further.


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/