linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] signals: sigqueue_free: don't free sigqueue if it is queued

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:	Wed, 21 May 2008 11:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	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: [PATCH 1/3] signals: sigqueue_free: don't free sigqueue if it
 is queued

On Wed, 21 May 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
> 
> Just properly removing the sigqueue entry and fixing the pending set is
> looking pretty good.  Why was it we didn't do that?

I thought we didn't even know which queue it was pending on if it was 
already on a thread-local queue. So we could remove the entry, but I 
always objected to the games with the pending bit.

Just removing the entry I'm ok with, it was the (pointless and misleading) 
use of recalc_sigpending() that started the whole discussion. The fact 
that we then also have that "which signal is pending" bit in front of the 
queue was something that came up later.

		Linus
--
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/