linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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: <20190527150409.GA8961@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 May 2019 17:04:09 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "dbueso@...e.de" <dbueso@...e.de>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Eric Wong <e@...24.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
        Omar Kilani <omar.kilani@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: Adjust error codes according to
 restore_user_sigmask()

Deepa,

it seems that we both are saying the same things again and again, and we
simply can't understand each other.

I'll try to write another email to restart this discussion. Tomorrow, somehow
I can't wake up today.

And let me repeat, of course I can be wrong. IOW, it is not that I am trying
to blame you for all this confusion.

On 05/24, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
> > > Ok, then can you point out what specifically was wrong with
> > > 854a6ed56839a?
> >
> > Cough. If nothing else the lost -EINTR?
>
> This was my theory. My basis behind the theory was [1](the issue with
> return value not being updated) above. And, you are saying this is ok.

I agree that "the lost -EINTR" above was not clear. I'll try to clarify
what I think is not OK.

Oleg.