[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202203091436.24F9B63B18@keescook>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:36:15 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] task_work: Decouple TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and task_work
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 10:24:50AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> There are a small handful of reasons besides pending signals that the
> kernel might want to break out of interruptible sleeps. The flag
> TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and the helpers that set and clear TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
> provide that the infrastructure for breaking out of interruptible
> sleeps and entering the return to user space slow path for those
> cases.
>
> Expand tracehook_notify_signal inline in it's callers and remove it,
> which makes clear that TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and task_work are separate
> concepts.
>
> Update the comment on set_notify_signal to more accurately describe
> it's purpose.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists