linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] core/core for v5.18-rc1

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: <CAHk-=wgfSKuzHggdngkXxSDvRp3FOMwbbvPJqag99NiRekbJfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:47:01 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] core/core for v5.18-rc1

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:02 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>   - Provide a mechanism to delay raising signals from atomic context on
>     PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels as sighand::lock cannot be acquired.  Store
>     the information in the task struct and raise it in the exit path.

This isn't super-pretty, but doing it conditionally makes it even uglier.

I've pulled this, but my reaction to it all is
"force_sig_info_to_task() isn't that critical, and
CONFIG_RT_DELAYED_SIGNALS might as well have been unconditional".

In fact, is there any reason to make it conditional even at run-time, ie this:

> +       if (!in_atomic())
> +               return false;

looks a bit unnecessary too. Why not just always do that thing and
avoid having two code-paths?

I really think we don't want more complexity in this unusual "force
signal on exception" case, and TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME doesn't seem like
it's the wrong place to do it.

Hmm?

Anyway, I've pulled it in this form, I just don't like the special
cases that seem a bit pointless. They not only make the code bigger
and more complex, they actively mean that test coverage is much worse
too.

             Linus