[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081224163503.GF11593@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:35:03 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, roland@...hat.com, bastian@...di.eu.org,
daniel@...ac.com, xemul@...nvz.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7][v4] Protect init from unwanted signals more
On 12/24, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> -static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig)
> +static int sig_task_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig)
> {
> void __user *handler;
>
> + handler = sig_handler(t, sig);
> +
> + if (unlikely(t->signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
> + (handler == SIG_IGN || handler == SIG_DFL))
> + return 1;
> +
> + return sig_handler_ignored(handler, sig);
Well, really minor nit, but can't resist ;)
if we check both SIG_IGN and SIG_DFL, then why do we call
sig_handler_ignored() ? We can do
if (unlikely(t->signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE))
return handler == SIG_IGN || handler == SIG_DFL;
return sig_handler_ignored(handler, sig);
Or, we can do
if (unlikely(t->signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
handler == SIG_DFL)
return 1;
return sig_handler_ignored(handler, sig);
because sig_handler_ignored() checks SIG_IGN too.
Of course, this is a matter of taste only...
Oleg.
--
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