Re: [PATCH 3/6] kernel: split syscall restart from signal handling

Jens Axboe
2020-10-08T14:48:06Z

On 10/8/20 8:45 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/08, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> On 10/8/20 8:21 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>> Can't we avoid this patch and the and simplify the change in
>>> exit_to_user_mode_loop() from the next patch? Can't the much more simple
>>> patch below work?
>>>
>>> Then later we can even change arch_do_signal() to accept the additional
>>> argument, ti_work, so that it can use ti_work & TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL/SIGPENDING
>>> instead of test_thread_flag/task_sigpending.
>>
>> Yeah I guess that would be a bit simpler, maybe I'm too focused on
>> decoupling the two. But if we go this route, and avoid sighand->lock for
>> just having TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL set, then that should be functionally
>> equivalent as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Not sure I understand... I think that the change I propose is functionally
> equivalent or I missed something.

Sorry, maybe my phrasing wasn't good, I'm totally agreeing with you :-)
Was just noting that the task_sigpending() is key for not calling
get_signal(), to avoid hitting the sighand->lock again.

--
Jens Axboe