[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k11pl12w.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 14:06:31 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 part 1 05/36] x86/entry: Flip _TIF_SIGPENDING and _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME handling
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz> writes:
> On Tue, 5 May 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> Make sure task_work runs before any kind of userspace -- very much
>> including signals -- is invoked.
>
> I might be missing something, but isn't this guaranteed by
> do_signal()->get_signal()->task_work_run() path?
The changelog is misleading. This is not about task_work it's about
TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME. Will fix.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists