linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] af_unix: Revert 'lock_interruptible' in stream receive code

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:	Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:34:41 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_unix: Revert 'lock_interruptible' in stream receive
 code

From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:09:25 +0000

> With b3ca9b02b00704053a38bfe4c31dbbb9c13595d0, the AF_UNIX SOCK_STREAM
> receive code was changed from using mutex_lock(&u->readlock) to
> mutex_lock_interruptible(&u->readlock) to prevent signals from being
> delayed for an indefinite time if a thread sleeping on the mutex
> happened to be selected for handling the signal. But this was never a
> problem with the stream receive code (as opposed to its datagram
> counterpart) as that never went to sleep waiting for new messages with the
> mutex held and thus, wouldn't cause secondary readers to block on the
> mutex waiting for the sleeping primary reader. As the interruptible
> locking makes the code more complicated in exchange for no benefit,
> change it back to using mutex_lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>

Applied, thanks Rainer.
--
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/