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]

Message-ID: <20081007222857.11f92ca0@merlin.oi.pg.gda.pl>
Date:	Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:28:57 +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

Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:14:34 +0100 - Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>:

> > > 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.
> 
> Well if mutexes don't work your kernel will eat your computer fairly
> rapidly so I think we may safely conclude that mutex locks work
> 

OK, so if this race problem raises only while kill_pgrp() is
used the proposed patch eliminates this problem. Of course we should
change code in all places where pgrp_kill() is used in conjuction
with mutexes and some internal variables are modified.
What do you think about it?

Regards

-- 
Adam Tlałka       mailto:atlka@...gda.pl    ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
System  & Network Administration Group       - - - ~~~~~~
Computer Center, Gdańsk University of Technology, Poland
--
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/