On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:26:37PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > Secondly, userfaultfd is indeed the only consumer of > FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE but not necessary always in the future. While > this patch resolves it for userfaultfd, it might get caught again later if > something else in the kernel starts to respects the _INTERRUPTIBLE flag > request. For example, __folio_lock_or_retry() ignores that flag so far, > but logically it should obey too (with a folio_wait_locked_interruptible).. No. Hell, no. We don't want non-fatal signals being able to interrupt that. There's a reason we introduced killable as a concept in the first place.
