linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] ppoll: use __kernel

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]

Message-ID: <CABeXuvrnzJJaZS-xp4+H7848+wbQ2TqsN9cVbM08a2naoyApCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:07:09 -0700
From:   Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ppoll: use __kernel_timespec

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:57 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 10:48 PM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > +
> > +       /* We can restart this syscall, usually */
> > +       if (ret == -EINTR) {
> > +               restore_user_sigmask(sigmask, &sigsaved);
> > +               ret = -ERESTARTNOHAND;
> > +       }
>
> I need a little help understanding this part: In the two existing copies of that
> function, you have changed it to
>
>         restore_user_sigmask(sigmask, &sigsaved);
>         if (ret == -EINTR)
>                 ret = -ERESTARTNOHAND;
>
> in the previous patch, but the new new copies you add here do
>
>        if (ret == -EINTR) {
>                restore_user_sigmask(sigmask, &sigsaved);
>                ret = -ERESTARTNOHAND;
>        }
>
> Is that intentional, or did you accidently leave a version in here that
> you had changed afterwards?

Oops, you are right. This wasn't intentional.
I will send out a v2.

Thanks,
Deepa