[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201008135325.GG9995@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:53:26 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] kernel: add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> static inline int signal_pending(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> +#ifdef TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
> + /*
> + * TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL isn't really a signal, but it requires the same
> + * behavior in terms of ensuring that we break out of wait loops
> + * so that notify signal callbacks can be processed.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)))
> + return 1;
> +#endif
> return task_sigpending(p);
> }
perhaps we can add test_tsk_thread_mask() later...
> static inline void restore_saved_sigmask_unless(bool interrupted)
> {
> - if (interrupted)
> + if (interrupted) {
> +#ifdef TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
> + WARN_ON(!test_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING) &&
> + !test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL));
> +#else
> WARN_ON(!test_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING));
> - else
> +#endif
> + } else {
> restore_saved_sigmask();
> + }
I'd suggest to simply do
- WARN_ON(!test_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING));
+ WARN_ON(!signal_pending(current);
> --- a/kernel/entry/kvm.c
> +++ b/kernel/entry/kvm.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ static int xfer_to_guest_mode_work(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ti_work)
> do {
> int ret;
>
> + if (ti_work & _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
> + tracehook_notify_signal();
Can't really comment this change, but to me it would be more safe to
simply return -EINTR.
Or perhaps even better, treat _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and _TIF_SIGPENDING
equally:
- if (ti_work & _TIF_SIGPENDING) {
+ if (ti_work & (_TIF_SIGPENDING | _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)) {
kvm_handle_signal_exit(vcpu);
return -EINTR;
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists