linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1245778278.9022.21.camel@psmith-ubeta.netezza.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0400
From:	Paul Smith <paul@...-scientist.net>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 10:14 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Fortunately, this doesn't look hard. Whatever we do, we should modify
> > dump_write/seek to check fatal_signal_pending() anyway. Because we can't
> > know if f_ops->write() pays attention to signals. 
> 
> Yes, that sounds fine.
> 
> > This means we can just add try_to_freeze().
> 
> Right.
> 
> > As for exit_mm(), we can use freezer_do_not_count() + freezer_count()
> > around the "for (;;)" loop.
> 
> Ah yes, sure.

Hi Oleg;

Did you have any more time to look into this?  I'm currently using my
patch and it's OK for my purposes but I'll be happy to test any proposal
you come up with, if you like, so I can drop my patch in the future.

Let me know, thanks!

--
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/