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  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:	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:11:20 +0530
From:	"Satyam Sharma" <>
To:	"Jeff Layton" <>
Cc:	"Herbert Xu" <>,,,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <>,
	"Oleg Nesterov" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: have tcp_recvmsg() check kthread_should_stop() and treat it as if it were signalled


On 6/9/07, Jeff Layton <> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:30:04 +1000
> Herbert Xu <> wrote:
> > Please cc networking patches to
> >
> > Jeff Layton <> wrote:
> > >
> > > The following patch is a first stab at removing this need. It makes it
> > > so that in tcp_recvmsg() we also check kthread_should_stop() at any
> > > point where we currently check to see if the task was signalled. If
> > > that returns true, then it acts as if it were signalled and returns to
> > > the calling function.

I got bit by the same thing when I was implementing a kthread that sleeps
on skb_recv_datagram() (=> wait_for_packet) with noblock = 0 over a netlink
socket. I need to use the same SIGKILL hack before kthread_stop() to ensure
the kthread does wake up *and* unblock from skb_recv_datagram() when the
module is being unloaded. Searched hard, but just couldn't find a prettier
solution (if someone knows, please let me know).

> > This just doesn't seem to fit.  Why should networking care about kthreads?

I agree.

> > Perhaps you can get kthread_stop to send a signal instead?

Yes, why not embed a send_sig(SIGKILL) just before the wake_up_process()
in kthread_stop() itself?

Looking at some happily out-of-date comments in the kthread code, I can
guess that at some point of time (perhaps very early drafts) Rusty actually
*did* implement the whole kthread_stop() functionality using signals, but
I suspect it might've been discarded and the kthread_stop_info approach
used instead to protect from spurious signals from userspace. (?)

So could we have signals in _addition_ to kthread_stop_info and change
kthread_should_stop() to check for both:

kthread_stop_info.k == current && signal_pending(current)

If !kthread_should_stop() && signal_pending(current) => spurious signal,
so just flush and discard (in the kthread).

> The problem there is that we still have to make the kthread let signals
> through. The nice thing about this approach is that we can make the
> kthread ignore signals, but still allow it to break out of kernel_recvmsg
> when a kthread_stop is done.

Why is it wrong for kthreads to let signals through? We can ignore out
all signals we're not interested in, and flush the spurious ones ...
otherwise there really isn't much those kthreads can do that get blocked
in such functions, is there?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists