linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix delayed signals

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.1.10.0807101549590.2936@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix delayed signals



On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > But if you really want that behaviour, then re-introducing the loop would 
> > likely be the better approach (or should be combined), since I think you 
> > effectively just re-introduced it (at a much bigger granularity).
> 
> I don't think so.  Firstly, TIF_SIGPENDING is not the only flag in
> question.  There are other reasons to re-enter do_notify_resume().
> If those are set during signal processing et al, they should take
> effect before going back to user mode.

You're ignoring the background question - we expressly _stopped_ doing 
this long ago. So the real issue was the ".. if you really .." part.

Do we really? What's the actual downside here?

		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/