[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090527190513.GA32452@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:05:13 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: paul@...-scientist.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.27.24] Kernel coredump to a pipe is failing
On 05/27, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Actually, I think there is a strong reason to handle signals during
> > core dumping. The coredump can take a lot of time/resources, not good
> > it looks like unkillable procees to users.
>
> One problem with that is if you send a process a string of signals that cause
> a core dump and then kill. In the old case you would just get a full core dump
> on the first signal and be done. With your change it would process
> the second signal too and stop the dumping and you get none or a partial
> core dump. That might well break existing setups.
I don't think we should worry about this particular case. Suppose a user
does
kill(pid, SIGQUIT);
kill(pid, SIGKILL);
In this case, most likely the core dump will not start. Because SIGKILL
will set SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT before the process dequeues SIGQUIT and start
do_coredump() which checks signal_group_exit() in zap_threads().
But yes, I agree, this change is user-visible and should be discussed.
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