On 05/28, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
> I agree that signal handller being called and return value not being
> altered is an issue with other syscalls also. I was just wondering if
> some userspace code assumption would be assuming this. This is not a
> kernel bug.
>
> But, I do not think we have an understanding of what was wrong in
> 854a6ed56839a anymore since you pointed out that my assumption was not
> correct that the signal handler being called without errno being set
> is wrong.
Deepa, sorry, I simply can't parse the above... most probably because of
my bad English.
> One open question: this part of epoll_pwait was already broken before
> 854a6ed56839a. Do you agree?
>
> if (err == -EINTR) {
> memcpy(¤t->saved_sigmask, &sigsaved,
> sizeof(sigsaved));
> set_restore_sigmask();
> } else
> set_current_blocked(&sigsaved);
I do not understand why do you think this part was broken :/
> Or, I could revert the signal_pending() check and provide a fix
> something like below(not a complete patch)
...
> -void restore_user_sigmask(const void __user *usigmask, sigset_t *sigsaved)
> +int restore_user_sigmask(const void __user *usigmask, sigset_t
> *sigsaved, int sig_pending)
> {
>
> if (!usigmask)
> return;
>
> /*
> * When signals are pending, do not restore them here.
> * Restoring sigmask here can lead to delivering signals that the above
> * syscalls are intended to block because of the sigmask passed in.
> */
> + if (sig_pending) {
> current->saved_sigmask = *sigsaved;
> set_restore_sigmask();
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -2330,7 +2330,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(epoll_pwait, int, epfd, struct
> epoll_event __user *, events,
>
> error = do_epoll_wait(epfd, events, maxevents, timeout);
>
> - restore_user_sigmask(sigmask, &sigsaved);
> + signal_detected = restore_user_sigmask(sigmask, &sigsaved,
> error == -EINTR);
I fail to understand this pseudo-code, sorry. In particular, do not understand
why restore_user_sigmask() needs to return a boolean.
The only thing I _seem to_ understand is the "sig_pending" flag passed by the
caller which replaces the signal_pending() check. Yes, this is what I think we
should do, and this is what I tried to propose from the very beginning in my
1st email in this thread.
Oleg.
