linux-kernel - Re: Do we really need curr_target in signal

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:	Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:09:26 +0600
From:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Do we really need curr_target in signal_struct ?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 01/28, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
> You could simply do while_each_thread(p, t) to find a thread which
> wants_signal(..).
>
Yes, while_each_thread() is much nicer than get_nr_thread(), thanks for
the pointer.

> But I guess ->curr_target was added exactly to avoid this loop if
> possible, assuming that wants_signal(->current_targer) should be
> likely true. Although perhaps this optimization is too simple.
>
Well, this code block will only hit when first check for wants_signal()
will miss, that means we need to find some other thread of the group.
AFAIU, ->current_target is only a loop breaker to avoid infinite loop,
but - by using while_each_thread() we can remove it completely, thus
helps to get rid from maintaining it too.

I'll prepare a proper patch with you suggestions for reviewing.

Thanks,
Rakib
--
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/