[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071120001624.83c7fbce.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:16:24 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait_task_stopped: pass correct exit_code to
wait_noreap_copyout
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:55:22 +0000 Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 22:43 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:13:24 +0000 Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In wait_task_stopped() exit_code already contains the right value for
> > > the si_status member of siginfo, and this is simply set in the non
> > > WNOWAIT case.
> > >
> > > Pass it unchanged to wait_noreap_copyout(); we would only need to
> > > shift it and add 0x7f if we were returning it in the user status field
> > > and that isn't used for any function that permits WNOWAIT.
> > >
> > Is this bug visible to userspace? If so, I'm surprised that none of the
> > various testsuites (which like to exercise this sort of interface) has
> > detected it.
> >
> Absolutely; if you call waitid() with a stopped or traced process,
> you'll get the signal in siginfo.si_status as expected -- however if you
> call waitid(WNOWAIT) at the same time, you'll get the signal << 8 | 0x7f
>
hm, OK. Well I guess I'll stick a for-2.6.23 tag on this as well as
queueing it for 2.6.24.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists