[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150506101927.GA17291@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 12:19:27 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo2.kernel.org@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signals: Generate warning when flush_signals() is called
from non-kthread context
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -427,6 +427,10 @@ void flush_signals(struct task_struct *t)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + /* Only kthreads are allowed to destroy signals: */
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!(current->flags & PF_KTHREAD)))
> > + return;
> > +
>
> But I am not sure this can't make some buggy driver even more buggy.
> Just suppose it does something
>
> do {
> if (signal_pending())
> flush_signals();
> } while (wait_event_interruptible(...));
>
> and this change will turn this into busy-wait loop.
>
> So perhaps another change which just adds WARN_ON_RATELIMIT()
> without "return" will be safer?
Yeah, absolutely.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists