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:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:22:03 +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 -mm 0/1] signal: simplify
 set_user_sigmask/restore_user_sigmask
Message-ID: <20190606102203.GA31870@redhat.com>
References: <20190522032144.10995-1-deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
 <20190529161157.GA27659@redhat.com>
 <20190604134117.GA29963@redhat.com>
 <20190605155801.GA25165@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wjkNx8u4Mcm5dfSQKYQmLQAv1Z1yGLDZvty7BVSj4eqBA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjkNx8u4Mcm5dfSQKYQmLQAv1Z1yGLDZvty7BVSj4eqBA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:58 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > To simplify the review, please see the code with this patch applied.
> > I am using epoll_pwait() as an example because it looks very simple.
>
> I like it.
>
> However.
>
> I think I'd like it even more if we just said "we don't need
> restore_saved_sigmask AT ALL".
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Did you mean restore_saved_sigmask_unless() introduced by this patch?

If yes:

> Which would be fairly easy to do with something like the attached...

I don't think so,

> --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static void exit_to_usermode_loop(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 cached_flags)
>  			klp_update_patch_state(current);
>
>  		/* deal with pending signal delivery */
> -		if (cached_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
> +		if (cached_flags & (_TIF_SIGPENDING | _TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK))
>  			do_signal(regs);

...

> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2877,6 +2877,7 @@ int set_user_sigmask(const sigset_t __user *usigmask, sigset_t *set,
>
>  	*oldset = current->blocked;
>  	set_current_blocked(set);
> +	set_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK);

This will re-introduce the problem fixed by the previous patch.

Yes, do_signal() does restore_saved_sigmask() at the end, but only if
get_signal() returns false.

This means that restore_saved_sigmask()->set_current_blocked(saved_mask) should
restore ->blocked (and may be clear TIF_SIGPENDING) before ret-from-syscall.

Or I misunderstood?

Oleg.