[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240523085859.GB15163@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 10:59:00 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] seccomp: interrupt SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV when all
users have exited
Hi Andrei,
the patch looks good to me even if I don't really understand what
SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV does. But let me ask a stupid question,
On 05/23, Andrei Vagin wrote:
>
> The change is based on the 'commit 99cdb8b9a573 ("seccomp: notify about
> unused filter")' which implemented (E)POLLHUP notifications.
To me this patch fixes the commit above, because without this change
> @@ -1466,7 +1466,7 @@ static int recv_wake_function(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned int mode, int s
> void *key)
> {
> /* Avoid a wakeup if event not interesting for us. */
> - if (key && !(key_to_poll(key) & (EPOLLIN | EPOLLERR)))
> + if (key && !(key_to_poll(key) & (EPOLLIN | EPOLLERR | EPOLLHUP)))
__seccomp_filter_orphan() -> wake_up_poll(&orig->wqh, EPOLLHUP) won't
wakeup the task sleeping in recv_wait_event(), right ?
In any case, FWIW
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists