Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 10:56:04 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, e@80x24.org,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio@kvack.org, omar.kilani@gmail.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: remove the wrong signal_pending() check in
 restore_user_sigmask()
Message-ID: <20190605085604.GA32406@redhat.com>
References: <20190522032144.10995-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
 <20190529161157.GA27659@redhat.com>
 <20190604134117.GA29963@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wjSOh5zmApq2qsNjmY-GMn4CWe9YwdcKPjT+nVoGiDKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjSOh5zmApq2qsNjmY-GMn4CWe9YwdcKPjT+nVoGiDKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/04, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:41 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is the minimal fix for stable, I'll send cleanups later.
>
> Ugh. I htink this is correct, but I wish we had a better and more
> intuitive interface.

Yes,

> In particular, since restore_user_sigmask() basically wants to check
> for "signal_pending()" anyway

No, the caller should check signal_pending() anyway and this is enough.

> > -       restore_user_sigmask(ksig.sigmask, &sigsaved);
> > -       if (signal_pending(current) && !ret)
> > +
> > +       interrupted = signal_pending(current);
> > +       restore_user_sigmask(ksig.sigmask, &sigsaved, interrupted);
> > +       if (interrupted && !ret)
> >                 ret = -ERESTARTNOHAND;
>
> are wrong to begin with,

This is fs/aio.c and I have already mentioned that this code doesn't look
right anyway.

> IOW, I think the above could become
>
>         ret = restore_user_sigmask(ksig.sigmask, &sigsaved, ret, -ERESTARTHAND);
>
> instead if we just made the right interface decision.

I think this particular code should simply do

		ret = do_io_getevents(...);

		if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS)
			ret = -EINTR;

		restore_user_sigmask(ret == -EINTR);

However I agree that another helper(s) which takes/returns the error code makes
sense and I was going to do this. Lets do this step by step, I think we should
kill sigmask/sigsaved first.

Oleg.