linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY

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

Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 10:01:57 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work
> > from real signals and signal delivery.
> 
> I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move
> try_to_freeze() from get_signal() to tracehook_notify_signal(), kill
> fake_signal_wake_up(), and remove freezing() from recalc_sigpending().
> 
> Probably the same for TIF_PATCH_PENDING, klp_send_signals() can use
> set_notify_signal() rather than signal_wake_up().

Yes, that was my impression from the patch set too, when I accidentally 
noticed it.

Jens, could you CC our live patching ML when you submit v4, please? It 
would be a nice cleanup.

Thanks
Miroslav