linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal/x86: Delay calling signals in atomic

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: <87tubif3cz.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:28:44 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal/x86: Delay calling signals in atomic

On Mon, Mar 28 2022 at 09:25, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
> Further this code is buggy.  TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME is not the correct
> flag to set to enter into exit_to_usermode_loop.  TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME is
> about that happens after signal handling.  This very much needs to be
> TIF_SIGPENDING with recalc_sigpending and friends updated to know about
> "task->force_info".
>
> Does someone own this problem?  Can that person please fix this
> properly?
>
> I really don't think it is going to be maintainable for PREEMPT_RT to
> maintain a separate signal delivery path for faults from the rest of
> linux.

Fair enough. Let me queue a revert and go back to the drawing board.

Thanks,

        tglx