On 01/27/2016 03:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:10:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
>> And, ironically, there is another more serious "reverse" problem ;)
>> sigsuspend()
>> orany other user of -ERESTARTNOHAND can "miss" the signal, in a sense that
>> the
>> kernel can wrongly restart this syscall after return from signal handler.
>> This
>> is not trivial to fix..
>
> So I'm not entirely sure I get what you mean there. But it did get me to
> look at the patch again:
>
> + while (!signal_pending(current)) {
> + __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + schedule();
> + }
>
> That should very much be:
>
> for (;;) {
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (signal_pending(current))
> break;
> schedule();
> }
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
Should that be the case for sys_pause() too?
Thanks,
Sasha
