From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:37:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120426183742.GA324@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120424072617.GB6871@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On 04/24, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Untested variants pushed into signal.git#master; will test tomorrow. In
> the meanwhile, any code review (and testing of the entire thing on as many
> targets as possible) would be very welcome.
I started to read these patches today, will continue tomorrow. Somehow
I got stuck at f1fcb14721b4f1e65387d4563311f15f0bd33684, please see the
question below. And a couple of minor nits.
b4b620b87fd2f388cf4c13fea21f31bed7c9a1b0 new helper: sigsuspend()
Looks obviously correct but I do not understand this chunk in kernel.c,
+ #ifndef __ARCH_HAS_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND
+ /**
+ * sys_rt_sigsuspend - replace the signal mask for a value with the
+
#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND
So this checks the (never used/defined?) __ARCH_HAS_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND
but comments out __ARCH_WANT_SYS_RT_SIGSUSPEND. Looks like a typo.
6b78370886e4f61187404b7737a831281bde35e8 xtensa: switch to generic rt_sigsuspend(2)
and
d978bf9dd41728dd60fe2269493fe8f21d28eef3 h8300: switch to saved_sigmask-based sigsuspend/rt_sigsuspend
(off-topic, but do_signal()->try_to_freeze() looks unneeded and wrong)
+ /* If there's no signal to deliver, we just restore the saved mask. */
+ if (test_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK)) {
+ clear_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK);
+ sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, ¤t->saved_sigmask, NULL);
^^^^^^^^^^^
set_current_blocked(¤t->saved_sigmask) looks better.
f1fcb14721b4f1e65387d4563311f15f0bd33684 alpha: tidy signal delivery up
Everything looks fine, but I have the off-topic question. The changelog
says:
* checking for TIF_SIGPENDING is enough; set_restart_sigmask() sets this
one as well.
Agreed, but why set_restore_sigmask() sets TIF_SIGPENDING? It should be
never used without signal_pending() == T.
IOW, do you know a reason why this patch
--- x/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
+++ x/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ static inline void set_restore_sigmask(v
{
struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
ti->status |= TS_RESTORE_SIGMASK;
- set_bit(TIF_SIGPENDING, (unsigned long *)&ti->flags);
+ WARN_ON(!test_bit(TIF_SIGPENDING, (unsigned long *)&ti->flags));
}
static inline bool is_ia32_task(void)
is not correct?
OK, say, sys_sigsuspend() does
current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
schedule();
set_restore_sigmask();
return -ERESTARTNOHAND;
so set_bit(TIF_SIGPENDING) saves us from the "spurious wakeup". But is
it really possible?
We had the bugs in ptrace some time ago (and iirc this is why sys_pause
checks signal_pending), but is there any reason today why the
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE task can return from schedule() without SIGPENDING?
(of course, ignoring the case when this task was added to some
wait_queue_head_t).
I am just curious. Perhaps set_restore_sigmask() sets SIGPENDING just
to be safer, but otoh this can hide the problem.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-26 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-18 13:04 [PULL REQUEST] : ima-appraisal patches Mimi Zohar
2012-04-18 15:02 ` James Morris
2012-04-18 18:07 ` Mimi Zohar
2012-04-18 18:39 ` Al Viro
2012-04-18 20:56 ` Mimi Zohar
2012-04-19 19:57 ` Mimi Zohar
2012-04-20 0:43 ` [RFC] situation with fput() locking (was Re: [PULL REQUEST] : ima-appraisal patches) Al Viro
2012-04-20 2:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 2:54 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 2:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 8:09 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 15:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 16:08 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 16:42 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 18:07 ` Al Viro
2012-04-23 18:01 ` [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such Al Viro
2012-04-23 18:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-24 7:26 ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 3:06 ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 12:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 12:50 ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 13:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 13:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 13:32 ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 14:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 15:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 16:10 ` Al Viro
2012-04-25 17:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 17:51 ` Al Viro
2012-04-26 7:15 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2012-04-26 7:25 ` David Miller
2012-04-26 13:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-26 14:31 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2012-04-26 13:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-26 18:37 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-04-26 23:19 ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 17:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-27 17:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-02 10:37 ` Matt Fleming
2012-05-02 14:14 ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 18:45 ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 19:14 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-04-27 19:34 ` Al Viro
2012-04-29 22:51 ` Al Viro
2012-04-30 6:39 ` Greg Ungerer
2012-04-27 19:42 ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 20:20 ` Roland McGrath
2012-04-27 21:12 ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 21:27 ` Roland McGrath
2012-04-27 23:15 ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 23:32 ` Al Viro
2012-04-29 4:12 ` Al Viro
2012-04-30 8:06 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2012-04-27 23:50 ` Al Viro
2012-04-28 18:51 ` [PATCH] arch/tile: avoid calling do_signal() after fork from a kernel thread Chris Metcalf
2012-04-28 20:55 ` Al Viro
2012-04-28 21:46 ` Chris Metcalf
2012-04-29 0:55 ` Al Viro
2012-04-28 18:51 ` [PATCH v2] arch/tile: fix up some issues in calling do_work_pending() Chris Metcalf
2012-04-29 3:49 ` [PATCH] arch/tile: avoid calling do_signal() after fork from a kernel thread Chris Metcalf
2012-04-28 2:42 ` [RFC] TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, arch/*/*/*signal*.c and all such Al Viro
2012-04-28 3:32 ` Al Viro
2012-04-28 3:36 ` Al Viro
2012-04-29 16:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 16:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 18:05 ` Al Viro
2012-05-01 4:31 ` Al Viro
2012-05-01 5:06 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-05-01 5:52 ` Al Viro
2012-05-02 17:24 ` Al Viro
2012-05-02 18:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 16:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-29 18:09 ` Al Viro
2012-04-29 18:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-20 3:15 ` [RFC] situation with fput() locking (was Re: [PULL REQUEST] : ima-appraisal patches) Al Viro
2012-04-20 18:54 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-20 19:04 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 19:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 19:32 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-20 19:58 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 21:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-20 22:13 ` Al Viro
2012-04-20 22:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-27 7:35 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-04-27 17:34 ` Al Viro
2012-04-27 18:52 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-04-27 19:15 ` Kasatkin, Dmitry
2012-04-30 14:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2012-05-03 4:23 ` James Morris
2012-04-20 19:37 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120426183742.GA324@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox