linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86: wire up 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:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:35:30 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86: wire up TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

On 10/15/20 8:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15 2020 at 08:31, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/15/20 8:11 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> We could, should probably make it:
>>
>> static void handle_signal_work(ti_work, regs)
>> {
>> 	if (ti_work & _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)
>>         	tracehook_notify_signal();
>>
>> 	if (ti_work & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
>>         	arch_do_signal(regs);
>> }
>>
>> and then we can skip modifying arch_do_signal() all together, as it'll
>> only be called if _TIF_SIGPENDING is set.
> 
> Then you loose the syscall restart thing which was the whole point of
> this exercise :)

Hah oh yeah, good point... But then we need to touch every arch
do_signal() anyway, so probably not much point in making the change
then.

-- 
Jens Axboe