On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:48 AM Deepa Dinamani <deepa.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 30, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com> > > wrote: > > > > ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes: > > > >> Which means I believe we have a semantically valid change in behavior > >> that is causing a regression. > > > > I haven't made a survey of all of the functions yet but > > fucntions return -ENORESTARTNOHAND will never return -EINTR and are > > immune from this problem. > > > > AKA pselect is fine. While epoll_pwait can be affected. > > This was my understanding as well.
I think I was misremembered here. I had noted this before: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CABeXuvq7gCV2qPOo+Q8jvNyRaTvhkRLRbnL_oJ-AuK7Sp=p...@mail.gmail.com/ "sys_io_pgetevents() does not seem to have this problem as we are still checking signal_pending() here. sys_pselect6() seems to have a similar problem. The changes to sys_pselect6() also impact sys_select() as the changes are in the common code path." This was the code replaced for io_pgetevents by 854a6ed56839a40f6b is as below. No matter what events completed, there was signal_pending() check after the return from do_io_getevents(). --- a/fs/aio.c +++ b/fs/aio.c @@ -2110,18 +2110,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(io_pgetevents, return ret; ret = do_io_getevents(ctx_id, min_nr, nr, events, timeout ? &ts : NULL); - if (signal_pending(current)) { - if (ksig.sigmask) { - current->saved_sigmask = sigsaved; - set_restore_sigmask(); - } - - if (!ret) - ret = -ERESTARTNOHAND; - } else { - if (ksig.sigmask) - sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &sigsaved, NULL); - } + restore_user_sigmask(ksig.sigmask, &sigsaved); + if (signal_pending(current) && !ret) + ret = -ERESTARTNOHAND; Can I ask a simple question for my understanding? man page for epoll_pwait says EINTR The call was interrupted by a signal handler before either any of the requested events occurred or the timeout expired; see signal(7). But it is not clear to me if we can figure out(without race) the chronological order if one of the requested events are completed or a signal came first. Is this a correct exectation? Also like pointed out above, this behavior is not consistent for all such syscalls(io_pgetevents). Was this also by design? -Deepa
