lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/6] kernel: split syscall restart from signal handling
From
Date
On 10/8/20 8:31 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/8/20 8:21 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>
>>> Move the restart syscall logic into a separate generic entry helper,
>>> and handle that part separately from signal checking and delivery.
>>>
>>> This is in preparation for being able to do syscall restarting
>>> independently from handling signals.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/kernel/signal.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>> include/linux/entry-common.h | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>> kernel/entry/common.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> Can't we avoid this patch and the and simplify the change in
>> exit_to_user_mode_loop() from the next patch? Can't the much more simple
>> patch below work?
>>
>> Then later we can even change arch_do_signal() to accept the additional
>> argument, ti_work, so that it can use ti_work & TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL/SIGPENDING
>> instead of test_thread_flag/task_sigpending.
>
> Yeah I guess that would be a bit simpler, maybe I'm too focused on
> decoupling the two. But if we go this route, and avoid sighand->lock for
> just having TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL set, then that should be functionally
> equivalent as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I'll make the reduction, I'd prefer to keep this as small/simple as
> possible initially.

FWIW, then we should also just integrate the x86 define change into
that patch, so we can drop patches 3 + 5 with this change.

--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-08 16:42    [W:0.069 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site