[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090111061505.GB9014@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:15:05 +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,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7][v6] Protect cinit from blocked fatal signals
On 01/06, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1890,9 +1890,16 @@ relock:
>
> /*
> * Global init gets no signals it doesn't want.
> + * Container-init gets no signals it doesn't want from same
> + * container.
> + *
> + * Note that if global/container-init sees a sig_kernel_only()
> + * signal here, the signal must have been generated internally
> + * or must have come from an ancestor namespace. In either
> + * case, the signal cannot be dropped.
> */
> if (unlikely(signal->flags & SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE) &&
> - !signal_group_exit(signal))
> + !sig_kernel_only(signr))
Just for record. We still have small problem with fatal_signal_pending(cinit),
we should add a similar change to complete_signal to ensure that the pending
SIGKILL implies SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT. But this needs another patch, and this
series is imho fine.
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