[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240418163811.GA23440@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:38:11 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 26/50] signal: Get rid of resched_timer logic
On 04/11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> There is no reason for handing the *resched pointer argument through
> several functions just to check whether the signal is related to a self
> rearming posix timer.
Agreed, these changes looks good to me.
But,
> SI_TIMER is only used by the posix timer code and cannot be queued from
> user space.
Why? I think sigqueueinfo() can certainly use si_code = SI_TIMER, so
> @@ -1011,6 +1001,9 @@ static int __send_signal_locked(int sig,
>
> lockdep_assert_held(&t->sighand->siglock);
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_si_special(info) && info->si_code == SI_TIMER))
> + return 0;
this can be easily triggered by userspace and thus looks wrong.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists