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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:58:25 +0000 From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> To: 'Oleg Nesterov' <oleg@...hat.com> CC: 'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>, "Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, "e@...24.org" <e@...24.org>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>, "omar.kilani@...il.com" <omar.kilani@...il.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH] signal: remove the wrong signal_pending() check in restore_user_sigmask() From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@...hat.com] > Sent: 05 June 2019 10:25 > On 06/05, David Laight wrote: > > > > epoll() would have: > > if (restore_user_sigmask(xxx.sigmask, &sigsaved, !ret || ret == -EINTR)) > > ret = -EINTR; > > I don't think so but lets discuss this later. I certainly think there should be some comments at least about when/whether signal handlers get called and that being separate from the return value. The system call restart stuff does seem strange. ISTR that was originally added for SIG_SUSPEND (^Z) so that those signals wouldn't be seen by the appication. But that makes it a property of the signal, not the system call. > > I also think it could be simplified if code that loaded the 'user sigmask' > > saved the old one in 'current->saved_sigmask' (and saved that it had done it). > > You'd not need 'sigsaved' nor pass the user sigmask address into > > the restore function. > > Heh. apparently you do not read my emails ;) > > This is what I proposed in my very 1st email, and I even showed the patch > and the code with the patch applied twice. Let me do this again. I did read that one, I've even quoted it in the past :-) It's just not been mentioned recently. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists