linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockd: convert reclaimer thread to kthread interface

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: <20081104144652.18d2910d@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:46:52 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockd: convert reclaimer thread to kthread interface

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:26:21 -0500
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 13:42 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > While we're on the subject of signals...
> > 
> > Do you have any thoughts/objections to just making the reclaimer thread
> > ignore them altogether? That would simplify the code a bit.
> 
> How does the administrator then get out of the situation where the
> server dies (permanently) in the middle of a reclaim?
> 

Erm...Reboot? :)

Ok, I'm convinced. I suppose that's a good enough argument for
continuing to allow SIGKILL. I guess the only change we need to make to
this patch for now is to remove the "memory leak" comment (unless there
is a leak and I'm just not seeing it).

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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/