linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] dlm updates for 5.3

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: <20190711143013.GA29395@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:30:13 -0500
From:   David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] dlm updates for 5.3

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:05:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If wait_event_interruptible() returns -ERESTARTSYS, it means that we
> have a signal pending.
> 
> And if we have a signal pending, then you can't go back and call
> wait_event_interruptible() in a loop, because the signal will
> *continue* to be pending, so now your "wait event" becomes a kernel
> busy loop.
> 
> If you don't want to react to signals, then you shouldn't use the
> "interruptible()" version of wait-event.

Right, a simple wait_event looks obvious; I'll have the submitters test
that before sending that next time around.  I'll put together another pull
with the two trivial commits.
Thanks
Dave