[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2375c9f91002080213n6de036br7690e14294ede27b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:13:15 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenbach@...soft.de>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: set ->group_exit_code for other CLONE_VM tasks
too
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> User visible change.
>
> do_coredump() kills all threads which share the same ->mm but only
> the coredumping process gets the proper exit_code. Other tasks which
> share the same ->mm die "silently" and return status == 0 to parent.
>
> This is historical behaviour, not actually a bug. But I think Frank
> Heckenbach rightly dislikes the current behaviour. Simple test-case:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <signal.h>
> #include <sys/wait.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int stat;
>
> if (!fork()) {
> if (!vfork())
> kill(getpid(), SIGQUIT);
> }
>
> wait(&stat);
> printf("stat=%x\n", stat);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Before this patch it prints "stat=0" despite the fact the child was
> killed by SIGQUIT. After this patch the output is "stat=3" which
> obviously makes more sense.
>
> Even with this patch, only the task which originates the coredumping
> gets "|= 0x80" if the core was actually dumped, but at least the
> coredumping signal is visible to do_wait/etc.
Nice changelog!
>
> Reported-by: Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenbach@...soft.de>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Acked-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Thank you!
> ---
>
> fs/exec.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- V1/fs/exec.c~CD_STATUS 2009-12-18 00:20:50.000000000 +0100
> +++ V1/fs/exec.c 2010-02-07 17:28:24.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1536,12 +1536,13 @@ out:
> return ispipe;
> }
>
> -static int zap_process(struct task_struct *start)
> +static int zap_process(struct task_struct *start, int exit_code)
> {
> struct task_struct *t;
> int nr = 0;
>
> start->signal->flags = SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT;
> + start->signal->group_exit_code = exit_code;
> start->signal->group_stop_count = 0;
>
> t = start;
> @@ -1566,8 +1567,7 @@ static inline int zap_threads(struct tas
> spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> if (!signal_group_exit(tsk->signal)) {
> mm->core_state = core_state;
> - tsk->signal->group_exit_code = exit_code;
> - nr = zap_process(tsk);
> + nr = zap_process(tsk, exit_code);
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> if (unlikely(nr < 0))
> @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ static inline int zap_threads(struct tas
> if (p->mm) {
> if (unlikely(p->mm == mm)) {
> lock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> - nr += zap_process(p);
> + nr += zap_process(p, exit_code);
> unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> }
> break;
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists