linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] signals: print_fatal_signal: fix the signr "calculation"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080308190311.779B326F990@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Sat,  8 Mar 2008 11:03:11 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] signals: print_fatal_signal: fix the signr "calculation"

The intent of your change is to get the printk for each thread, right?
I don't really see the point.  The thread that actually had the fault will
dequeue a non-SIGKILL signal and report its status.  We only need one
thread per signal to the print-out.

Hmm.  I see that non-coredump signals that hit the optimized fatal case in
__group_complete_signal will cause every thread to have a pending SIGKILL.
So that will be seen first and prevent the print-out.  So that's what you
intend to change?

I'm not sure print-fatal-signals was really ever intended for non-coredump
signals.  It doesn't seem like it would be all that useful.  It's probably
even undesireable for every normal C-c killing something to cause a printk.

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/