[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100201103933.GA32188@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:39:33 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jmoskovc@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, t.sailer@...mni.ethz.ch, abelay@....edu,
gregkh@...e.de, spock@...too.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
neilb@...e.de, mfasheh@...e.com, menage@...gle.com,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: allow core_pipe recursion check to look for
a value of 1 rather than 0 (v2)
On 02/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Oh. And in theory, it is better to change wait_for_helper(). It should
> do allow_signal(SIGCHLD) after kernel_thread(). Otherwise, kernel_thread()
> can fail if user-space sends SIGCHLD to the forking thread.
Well ;) And since allow_signal(SIGCHLD) was called, in theory we should
call sys_wait4() + clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING) in a loop to protect
against the false SIGCHLD.
> > > Cough. And why call_usermodehelper_exec() has this strange ->path[0] == '\0'
> > > check?
> > >
> > That I can't explain. I figured I'd let that sleeping dog lie until this got
> > striaghtened out and fix it separately if it needed it
> > Neil
>
> Yes, yes, agreed. As I said, this has nothing to do with this series,
> even if I am right these (minor) bugs should be fixed separately.
Yes.
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