linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked

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:	Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:51:21 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked

Hello, Oleg.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:44:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> allow_signal(sig) unblocks the signal. This was only needed because
> we had the daemonize()'ed kthreads playing with signals. And daemonize()
> can't use ignore_signals() but does sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) because it
> was used after kernel_thread(CLONE_SIGHAND).
> 
> Nobody does this any longer, we can remove this hack. And hopefully
> we can deprecate daemonize() soon, all current users do not actually
> need it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

I agree with the patchset but given that daemonize() isn't all that
popular and you already posted most (or was it all?) conversions,
wouldn't it be better to do this in a single patchset?  ie. Convert
all daemonize() users, kill daemonize(), and drop the hack from
allow_signal().

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/