linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/43] blackfin: Use set_current_blocked() and block

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: <CAMjpGUexVttx_tnjsL5i9NfF2bTjH5y9H5eLosFQw0Nq12+JoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:31:50 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/43] blackfin: Use set_current_blocked() and block_sigmask()

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 04:36, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 00:00 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:46, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> > --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/signal.c
>> > +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/signal.c
>> > -       if (ret == 0) {
>> > -               spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
>> > -               sigorsets(&current->blocked, &current->blocked,
>> > -                         &ka->sa.sa_mask);
>> > -               if (!(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER))
>> > -                       sigaddset(&current->blocked, sig);
>> > -               recalc_sigpending();
>> > -               spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
>> > -       }
>> > +       if (ret == 0)
>> > +               block_sigmask(ka, sig);
>>
>> the Blackfin version holds siglock and calls recalc_sigpending() while
>> block_sigmask() does neither.  i'm guessing that is expected behavior
>> now ?
>
> Yah, set_current_blocked() inside of block_sigmask() still grabs siglock
> and calls recalc_sigpending() for you. Reading current->blocked inside
> of block_sigmask() is fine and the sigorsets() is OK because we're
> modifying a stack variable, so only grabbing the lock inside of
> set_current_blocked() is safe.

thanks for clearing that up (and the code itself!).

Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
-mike
--
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/