linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal: Adjust error codes according to restore_user

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]

Message-ID: <20190503063435.446aqcckbc6ri7xx@dcvr>
Date:   Fri, 3 May 2019 06:34:35 +0000
From:   Eric Wong <e@...24.org>
To:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        omar.kilani@...il.com, jbaron@...mai.com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dave@...olabs.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Adjust error codes according to
 restore_user_sigmask()

Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I was trying a new setup at work. I should have tested it.
> My bad, I've checked this one.

Thanks.  This is good w.r.t. epoll_pwait and ppoll when applied
to 5.0.11 (no fs/io_uring.c).

Can't think of anything which uses pselect or aio on my system;
but it looks right to me.

> I've removed the questionable reported-by, since we're not sure if
> it is actually the same issue.

Yes, I hope Omar can test this, too.

Thanks again, all!