linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] signal: sys_sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared

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: <20110427130406.GG31015@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:04:06 +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 5/6] signal: sys_sigprocmask() needs
 retarget_shared_pending()

Hello,

Just my 5 cents.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:57:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes, sigprocmask(how) is ugly, but there are sys_rt_sigprocmask() and
> sys_sigprocmask() which have to handle these SIG_* operations anyway.
> So, I think we should do:
> 
> 	1. Almost all callers of sigprocmask() use SIG_SETMASK, we can
> 	   simply change them to use set_current_blocked().

I agree.  We don't need to worry about atomicity here, so there's no
reason to encode bitops (be it and/or or andn/xor) when the
determination of the new value can be simply done in the caller.

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/