On 06/04, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:41 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is the minimal fix for stable, I'll send cleanups later. > > Ugh. I htink this is correct, but I wish we had a better and more > intuitive interface. Yes, > In particular, since restore_user_sigmask() basically wants to check > for "signal_pending()" anyway No, the caller should check signal_pending() anyway and this is enough. > > - restore_user_sigmask(ksig.sigmask, &sigsaved); > > - if (signal_pending(current) && !ret) > > + > > + interrupted = signal_pending(current); > > + restore_user_sigmask(ksig.sigmask, &sigsaved, interrupted); > > + if (interrupted && !ret) > > ret = -ERESTARTNOHAND; > > are wrong to begin with, This is fs/aio.c and I have already mentioned that this code doesn't look right anyway. > IOW, I think the above could become > > ret = restore_user_sigmask(ksig.sigmask, &sigsaved, ret, -ERESTARTHAND); > > instead if we just made the right interface decision. I think this particular code should simply do ret = do_io_getevents(...); if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS) ret = -EINTR; restore_user_sigmask(ret == -EINTR); However I agree that another helper(s) which takes/returns the error code makes sense and I was going to do this. Lets do this step by step, I think we should kill sigmask/sigsaved first. Oleg.
