linux-kernel - Re: [possible bug] missed wakeup in do

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: <YTO2yrr3z45XtGWt@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Sat, 4 Sep 2021 18:11:22 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [possible bug] missed wakeup in do_sigtimedwait()?

On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 10:12:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 9:59 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, that seems like a bug, and your fix seems the trivially correct thing.
> 
> Oh, never mind.  Signals are special.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE is special, and schedule() will check for
> "am I trying to sleep while a signal is pending" and will never
> actually sleep.
> 
> So you can't have missed wakeups from signals, because this sequence
> is perfectly ok, by design:
> 
>  - signal comes in and is pending
> 
>  - we set TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
> 
>  - we are thinking about something *entirely* different, like looking
> at a pipe being emty
> 
>  - we schedule()
> 
> and the pending signal will just mean that we never go to sleep.
> 
> It's designed that way exactly so that people who have interruptible
> sleeps don't need to think about signals at all - they can concentrate
> on doing their own thing, and then do the "signal_pending()" check at
> any point without caring.

Thanks.  AFAICS, it's this logics in __schedule():
                if (signal_pending_state(prev_state, prev)) {
                        WRITE_ONCE(prev->__state, TASK_RUNNING);
IOW, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE with signal_pending() or TASK_WAKEKILL with
pending SIGKILL.  OK...