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]

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:23:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, 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,
	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 04/04, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 04 2024 at 15:43, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > And this will happen with
> > or without the commit bcb7ee79029dca ("posix-timers: Prefer delivery of
> > signals to the current thread"). Any thread can dequeue a shared signal,
> > say, on return from interrupt.
> >
> > Just without that commit this "eventually" means A_LOT_OF_TIME
> > statistically.
>
> bcb7ee79029dca only directs the wakeup to current, but the signal is
> still queued in the process wide shared pending list. So the thread
> which sees sigpending() first will grab and deliver it to itself.

This is what I tried to say above.

> What we can actually test is the avoidance of waking up the main thread
> by doing the following in the main thread:

Hmm... I think it can be even simpler,

> I'm testing a modification which implements something like the above and
> the success condition is that the main thread does not return early from
> nanosleep() and has no signal accounted. It survived 2000 iterations by
> now.

Yes, but please see a trivial test-case I sent you few minutes ago.

Oleg.