linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/0] SIGWINCH problem with terminal apps

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:	Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:28:34 +0200
From:	Adam Tlałka <atlka@...gda.pl>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/0] SIGWINCH problem with terminal apps

Hi,

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:13:06 +0100 - Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>:
> > So as a quick solution I made patches which move mentioned updates
> > before kill_pgrp() calls. As I tested modified kernel there is no
> > observed effect now. So I send patchs.
> 
> NAK - this might happen to make the race miss on your box but it's
> not a fix of any kind.

It depends. If mutexes are not working properly only in case of signal
sending then moving variables modification before kill_pgrp() call
could be a quite good enough solution too. Mutexes seems to be faster
and more efficient then semaphores for example.
 
> The code was never race free, the scheduler change made the problem
> show up more. Later 2.6.27-rc has patches that use the termios lock
> across TIOCG/SWINSZ and deal with the problem properly.

Maybe but what with older versions. Anyway the problem is if mutexes
are usable here or not.
 
Regards

-- 
Adam Tlałka
--
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/