Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:32:45 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] signals: eventpoll: set ->saved_sigmask at the start |
| |
On 06/25, Al Viro wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 09:57:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > + current->saved_sigmask = current->blocked; > > set_current_blocked(&ksigmask); > > } > > > > error = sys_epoll_wait(epfd, events, maxevents, timeout); > > - > > /* > > * If we changed the signal mask, we need to restore the original one. > > * In case we've got a signal while waiting, we do not restore the > > @@ -1988,12 +1988,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(epoll_pwait, int, epfd, struct epoll_event __user *, events, > > * the way back to userspace, before the signal mask is restored. > > */ > > if (sigmask) { > > - if (error == -EINTR) { > > - memcpy(¤t->saved_sigmask, &sigsaved, > > - sizeof(sigsaved)); > > + if (error == -EINTR) > > set_restore_sigmask(); > > - } else > > - set_current_blocked(&sigsaved); > > + else > > + __set_current_blocked(¤t->saved_sigmask); > > I don't like that. If anything, we have > static inline void restore_saved_sigmask(void) > { > if (test_and_clear_restore_sigmask()) > __set_current_blocked(¤t->saved_sigmask); > } > which means that the last part can be turned into > set_restore_sigmask(); > if (error != -EINTR) > restore_saved_sigmask();
set_restore_sigmask() does WARN_ON(!TIF_SIGPENDING).
> and I'd pulled set_restore_sigmask() call next to setting the sucker.
Sorry, can't understand...
Anyway, I agree we can make this more clean. From 0/2
Perhaps it also makes sense to add the new helper which does copy_from_user + set saved_sigmask + set_current_blocked() ?
and perhaps we can add another helper which does set_restore_sigmask() _or_ set_current_blocked(saved_sigmask), this can simplify more callers. I think we can do this on top of this change.
Or I misunderstood and you dislike the very fact we rely on the already initialized ->saved_sigmask ?
Oleg.
| |