[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245833631.3280.0.camel@wing-commander>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:53:51 +0100
From: Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: +
proc-connector-add-event-for-process-becoming-session-leader.patch added to
-mm tree
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 22:29 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > The act of a process becoming a session leader is a useful signal to a
> > supervising init daemon such as Upstart.
> ...
> > @@ -360,8 +360,10 @@ void __set_special_pids(struct pid *pid)
> > {
> > struct task_struct *curr = current->group_leader;
> >
> > - if (task_session(curr) != pid)
> > + if (task_session(curr) != pid) {
> > change_pid(curr, PIDTYPE_SID, pid);
> > + proc_sid_connector(curr);
> > + }
>
> Wouldn't it better to change sys_setsid() then? This looks more clear
> imho, and we can move proc_sid_connector() outside of tasklist_lock.
>
> Note also that __set_special_pids() does not neccessary mean we are
> becoming a session leader, see daemonize().
>
Actually, I specifically wanted to receive this event if the process
called daemonize() which is why this is done here rather than in
sys_setsid()
The new session is important information to init in figuring out what
the process is up to (ie, fork(), setsid(), fork() = daemonise)
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@...ntu.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists