linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the current thread

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: <87sf02bgez.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:43:32 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Eric W.
 Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
 kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>, Carlos Llamas
 <cmllamas@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] posix-timers: Prefer delivery of signals to the
 current thread

On Wed, Apr 03 2024 at 17:03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/03, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> The test if fragile as hell as there is absolutely no guarantee that the
>> signal target distribution is as expected. The expectation is based on a
>> statistical assumption which does not really hold.
>
> Agreed. I too never liked this test-case.
>
> I forgot everything about this patch and test-case, I can't really read
> your patch right now (sorry), so I am sure I missed something, but
>
>>  static void *distribution_thread(void *arg)
>>  {
>> -	while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED));
>> -	return NULL;
>> +	while (__atomic_load_n(&remain, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) && !done) {
>> +		if (got_signal)
>> +			usleep(10);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return (void *)got_signal;
>>  }
>
> Why distribution_thread() can't simply exit if got_signal != 0 ?
>
> See https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230128195641.GA14906@redhat.com/

Indeed. It's too obvious :)