linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:11:22 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jstancek@...hat.com, clm@...com,
	vladimir.murzin@....com, pjt@...gle.com, efault@....de,
	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: Fix the signal handling fix

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 07:50:04PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > +			ret = (*action)(&q->key, mode);
> 
> And every action() should check signal_pending_state()...
> 
> So why we can't change __wait_on_bit/etc instead and remove all the signal-
> pending checks from the callbacks? It seems that we can just check
> signal_pending_state() before prepare_to_wait(). Or perhaps we can add
> another helper which acts like prepare_to_wait_event().
> 
> Yes, some callers want -EINTR, some -ERESTARTSYS, but this shouldn't be a
> problem.
> 
> And sorry if this was already discussed, another case when I am trying to
> return to lkml with a lot of unread emails.

Yes that looks like a viable cleanup. But at least now we have a base
that's working for everyone.

I'll try and do some patches tomorrow.
--
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/