linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 0/1] signal: simplify set_user_sigmask/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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjkNx8u4Mcm5dfSQKYQmLQAv1Z1yGLDZvty7BVSj4eqBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 10:24:47 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     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,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, 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>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/1] signal: simplify set_user_sigmask/restore_user_sigmask

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:58 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> To simplify the review, please see the code with this patch applied.
> I am using epoll_pwait() as an example because it looks very simple.

I like it.

However.

I think I'd like it even more if we just said "we don't need
restore_saved_sigmask AT ALL".

Which would be fairly easy to do with something like the attached...

(Yes, this only does x86, which is a problem, but I'm bringing this up
as a RFC..)

Is it worth another TIF flag? This sure would simplify things, and it
really fits the concept too: this really is a do_signal() issue, and
fundamentally goes together with TIF_SIGPENDING.

                Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (2079 bytes)