linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] simplify sig

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20081119185329.1FEC01544EB@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:53:29 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] simplify sig_ignored() pathes

> The code which checks for ignored signals is a bit overcomplicated
> because tracehook_consider_ignored_signal() wants the "handler" arg.
> Can't we kill it? It is not used even with utrace, and even if it will
> be used later it is OK to read ->sighand again in the slow path.

Yeah, it's fine to kill the arg.  For consistency, change
tracehook_consider_fatal_signal to match.  They are specified as called
with the siglock held, so it will indeed be easy and safe to check
->sighand if tracing code wants to distinguish the cases in the future.


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/