[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080323130650.GA242@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:06:50 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] signals: allow the kernel to actually kill /sbin/init
Currently the buggy /sbin/init hangs if SIGSEGV/etc happens. The kernel sends
the signal, init dequeues it and ignores, returns from the exception, repeats
the faulting instruction, and so on forever.
Imho, such a behaviour is not good. I think that the explicit loud death of
the buggy /sbin/init is better than the silent hang.
Change force_sig_info() to clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE when the task should be
really killed.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
--- 25/kernel/signal.c~3_INIT_SIGSEGV 2008-03-16 15:45:56.000000000 +0300
+++ 25/kernel/signal.c 2008-03-16 16:14:56.000000000 +0300
@@ -877,7 +877,8 @@ specific_send_sig_info(int sig, struct s
* since we do not want to have a signal handler that was blocked
* be invoked when user space had explicitly blocked it.
*
- * We don't want to have recursive SIGSEGV's etc, for example.
+ * We don't want to have recursive SIGSEGV's etc, for example,
+ * that is why we also clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE.
*/
int
force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t)
@@ -897,6 +898,8 @@ force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *
recalc_sigpending_and_wake(t);
}
}
+ if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
+ t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
ret = specific_send_sig_info(sig, info, t);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
--
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