[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091004021844.GA21006@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:18:44 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Was: pidns : PR_SET_PDEATHSIG + SIGKILL regression
On 10/03, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> static void reparent_thread(struct task_struct *father, struct task_struct *p,
> struct list_head *dead)
> {
> - if (p->pdeath_signal)
> - group_send_sig_info(p->pdeath_signal, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, p);
> + if (p->pdeath_signal) {
> + struct siginfo info;
> +
> + info.si_code = SI_USER;
> + info.si_signo = p->pdeath_signal;
> + info.si_errno = 0;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + info.si_pid = task_tgid_nr_ns(father, task_active_pid_ns(p));
> + info.si_uid = __task_cred(father)->uid;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + group_send_sig_info(p->pdeath_signal, &info, p);
> + }
I think the patch is correct.
But afaics we should clarify the "from user" semantics and fix
send_signal() instead.
What do you think about this simple series? (the last 2 patches
are pure cosmetic and off-topic).
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