linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] exit: kill signal_struct->quick

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: <87ikyamf4u.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:53:21 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] exit: kill signal_struct->quick_threads

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:

> So...
>
> Eric, do you agree with this patch or not?

I really don't.

I think skipping some work if SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is already
set is not necessarily wrong.

I think we need the quick_threads count, and related cleanups.
I was hoping to be able to post a patchset with this reply
to explain things, but it looks like that is still a couple
of days off.

Where I was going, and where I think we should go with quick_threads is
an exit path that is much easier to reason about and maintain.  But the
decrement needs to move into the same code that sets SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT.
Which makes it something very different from signal->live.

Eric