linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Signal scalability series

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: <20111004172938.GB3489@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:29:38 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Signal scalability series

On 10/04, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> Ah, I think it was these lines that confused me into thinking
> ->ctrl_lock wasn't required around PF_EXITING,
>
> void exit_signals(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
>         int group_stop = 0;
>         sigset_t unblocked;
>
>         if (thread_group_empty(tsk) || signal_group_exit(tsk->signal)) {
>                 tsk->flags |= PF_EXITING;
>                 return;
>         }
>
> But I guess that's safe because either we're the only thread in the
> group or the group is already going to exit?

Yes. Except s/exit/exit or exec/.

And this reminds me... This is not exactly right. I do not mean
this particular function, but the whole logic. An execing process
can miss SIGSTOP. Or the coredumping signal.

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/