linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] x86: signal: handle_signal() should use set_current

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: <20110425111949.GI17734@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:19:49 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] x86: signal: handle_signal() should use
 set_current_blocked()

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 03:46:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> This is ugly, but if sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared_pending() then
> handle signal should follow this logic. In theory it is newer correct to
							  never?

> add the new signals to current->blocked, the signal handler can sleep/etc
> so we should notify other threads in case we block the pending signal and
> nobody else has TIF_SIGPENDING.
> 
> Of course, this change doesn't make signals faster :/

I don't think it's gonna make things go much slower either except for
pathological cases.

> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/