On 05/24, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
> I think you are misunderstanding what I said.
probably. Everything was very confusing to me from the very beginning.
And yes, I can hardly understand your emails, sorry. This one too :/
> You are taking things
> out of context. I was saying here what I did was inspired by why the
> syscall was designed to begin with.
which syscall?
> The syscall below refers to
> epoll_wait and not epoll_pwait.
So you tried to explain why epoll_pwait() was designed? Or what?
Either way, everything I said below still looks right to me. This probably
means that I still can't understand you.
But this is irrelevant. My main point is that the kernel was correct before
854a6ed568 ("signal: Add restore_user_sigmask()"), the (incomplete) patch I sent
tries to a) restore the correct behaviour and b) simplify/cleanup the code.
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:19 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/23, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. block the signals you don't care about.
> > > 2. syscall()
> > > 3. unblock the signals blocked in 1.
> >
> > and even this part of your email is very confusing. because in this case
> > we can never miss a signal. I'd say
> >
> > 1. block the signals you don't care about
> > 2. unblock the signals which should interrupt the syscall below
> > 3. syscall()
> > 4. block the signals unblocked in 2.
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
