linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH UPDATED 8/9] ptrace: move JOBCTL_TRAPPING wait to wait(2) and ptrace_check

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 May 2011 18:04:54 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 8/9] ptrace: move JOBCTL_TRAPPING wait to
	wait(2) and ptrace_check_attach()

On 05/16, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:11:42PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Anyway, restart_syscall() is not right for do_wait(), especially with the
> > next patch. If the caller was woken by the real signal which has a handler,
> > we should not restart without SA_RESTART.
>
> I don't think it really matters and might even be incorrect if we do
> that.  e.g. we would introduce -EINTR failure to WNOHANG waits.

Agreed.

> The only case that I think of where this could be visible is sleeping
> wait(2), checking the state again after being woken up and gets signal
> while waiting for TRAPPING.  In this case, yeap, we should fail with
> -EINTR.

Yes, -EINTR or restart if SA_RESTART.

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/