linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] signals: Don't hold shared siglock across signal delivery

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: <20110416142725.55720caa@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:27:25 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] signals: Don't hold shared siglock across
 signal delivery

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:20:59 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> Btw, I forgot to mention another problem. We should not dequeue from
> signal->shared_pending before task->pending. There are various reasons
> why we shouldn't, but in particular please look at a27341cd
> "Prioritize synchronous signals over 'normal' signals".

Oh, that's an interesting point! I hadn't thought of that.

OK, I'll swap the dequeue order back to the way it was. This actually
makes things a little easier as we can now get away with not reading
the list of pending shared signals in the fast path.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/