linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 3/3] signal: Allow tasks to cache one sigqueue struct

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]

Message-ID: <87blbo2my0.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 20:26:15 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 3/3] signal: Allow tasks to cache one sigqueue struct

On Fri, Mar 12 2021 at 17:11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> @@ -456,7 +460,12 @@ static void __sigqueue_free(struct sigqu
>>  		return;
>>  	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&q->user->sigpending))
>>  		free_uid(q->user);
>> -	kmem_cache_free(sigqueue_cachep, q);
>> +
>> +	/* Cache one sigqueue per task */
>> +	if (!current->sigqueue_cache)
>> +		current->sigqueue_cache = q;
>> +	else
>> +		kmem_cache_free(sigqueue_cachep, q);
>>  }
>
> This doesn't look right, note that __exit_signal() does
> flush_sigqueue(&sig->shared_pending) at the end, after exit_task_sighand()
> was already called.
>
> I'd suggest to not add the new exit_task_sighand() helper and simply free
> current->sigqueue_cache at the end of __exit_signal().

Ooops. Thanks for spotting this!