Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-151020-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Anna-Maria Behnsen
 <anna-maria@linutronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
 John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Eric
 Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 25/50] signal: Confine POSIX_TIMERS properly
In-Reply-To: <20240418152308.GA20625@redhat.com>
References: <20240410164558.316665885@linutronix.de>
 <20240410165552.509700441@linutronix.de>
 <20240418152308.GA20625@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:42:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87v84dx603.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Thu, Apr 18 2024 at 17:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +static inline void posixtimer_rearm_itimer(struct task_struct *p) { }
>> +static inline void posixtimer_rearm(struct kernel_siginfo *info) { }
>
> Do we really need these 2 nops ? please see below.

>> +		if (unlikely(signr == SIGALRM))
>> +			posixtimer_rearm_itimer(tsk);
>
> ...
>
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS)) {
>> +		if (unlikely(resched_timer))
>> +			posixtimer_rearm(info);
>>  	}
>
> This looks a bit inconsistent to me.
>
> Can't we change the callsite of posixtimer_rearm_itimer() to check
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS) too,
>
> 		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS)) {
> 			if (unlikely(signr == SIGALRM))
> 				posixtimer_rearm_itimer(tsk);
> 		}
> ?
>
> This will make the code more symmetrical, and we can avoid the dumb
> definitions of posixtimer_rearm_itimer/posixtimer_rearm.

Yes, we just need to expose the actual function prototypes
unconditionally. Let me fix that.

Thanks,

        tglx