linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] seccomp: don't use semaphore and wait

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 13:51:14 -0800
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc:     Andrei Vagin <avagin@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] seccomp: don't use semaphore and wait_queue together

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:58 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:30:06PM -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > From: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
> >
> > The main reason is to use new wake_up helpers that will be added in the
> > following patches. But here are a few other reasons:
> >
> > * if we use two different ways, we always need to call them both. This
> >   patch fixes seccomp_notify_recv where we forgot to call wake_up_poll
> >   in the error path.
>
> [snip]
>
> > @@ -1515,7 +1546,8 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
> >                       if (should_sleep_killable(filter, knotif))
> >                               complete(&knotif->ready);
> >                       knotif->state = SECCOMP_NOTIFY_INIT;
> > -                     up(&filter->notif->request);
> > +                     atomic_add(1, &filter->notif->requests);
> > +                     wake_up_poll(&filter->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
> >               }
> >               mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
> >       }
>
> I wonder if this shouldn't be a separate patch that you can send now
> independent of this series?

You are right. It is a bug fix and I can send it in a separate patch.
I didn't expect it would take so long to merge the whole set.

Thanks,
Andrei