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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:21:20 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] signal: prepare for CLD_* notification changes On 12/06, Tejun Heo wrote: > > static void do_notify_parent_cldstop(struct task_struct *tsk, int why) > { > struct siginfo info; > unsigned long flags; > struct task_struct *parent; > struct sighand_struct *sighand; > + struct signal_struct *sig; > + int notify = 0; > + > + /* > + * Determine whether and what to notify. This should be done under > + * @tsk's siglock. Hmm... it is not clear why. > + spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags); > > + switch (why) { > + case CLD_CONTINUED: > + case CLD_STOPPED: > + case CLD_TRAPPED: > + notify = why; > + break; > + } OK, with the next patches this code checks sig->flags, probably that is why we take ->siglock. Still I can't understand this so far. May be the comment could tell more? > @@ -1640,6 +1684,7 @@ static void do_notify_parent_cldstop(struct task_struct *tsk, int why) > } > > sighand = parent->sighand; > + sig = parent->signal; This looks unneeded. Oleg. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists