From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:03:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] arm: cacheflush: get rid of restarting block In-Reply-To: <005b01d009f6$f3c6a0f0$db53e2d0$@min@lge.com> References: <1416928737-29723-1-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com> <005b01d009f6$f3c6a0f0$db53e2d0$@min@lge.com> Message-ID: <20141127100306.GA20649@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 04:02:24AM +0000, Chanho Min wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vladimir Murzin [mailto:vladimir.murzin at arm.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 12:19 AM > > To: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux at arm.linux.org.uk > > Cc: chanho.min at lge.com; will.deacon at arm.com; stable at vger.kernel.org > > Subject: [PATCH] arm: cacheflush: get rid of restarting block > > > > We cannot restart cacheflush safely if a process provides user-defined > > signal handler and signal is pending. In this case -EINTR is returned > > and it is expected that process re-invokes syscall. However, there are > > a few problems with that: > > * looks like nobody bothers checking return value from cacheflush > > * but if it did, we don't provide the restart address for that, so the > > process has to use the same range again > > * ...and again, what might lead to looping forever > > > > So, remove cacheflush restarting code and terminate cache flushing > > as early as fatal signal is pending. > > > > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org # 3.12+ > > Reported-by: Chanho Min > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Murzin > > Acked-by: Will Deacon > > --- > > Hi, > > > > There is my proposal for the problem reported in [1]. Since that > > thread has not been progressing much, I'm addressing the problem in > > separate patch. > > > > Comments? > Thanks, We hope this to be applied. Ok, good. In which case, can you put it into the patch system please, Vladimir? Will