[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100512021537.GA11805@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:15:37 -0700
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...t.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mathias Krause <Mathias.Krause@...unet.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] INIT_TASK() should initialize ->thread_group list
Oleg Nesterov [oleg@...hat.com] wrote:
| The trivial /sbin/init doing
|
| int main(void)
| {
| kill(0, SIGKILL)
| }
|
| crashes the kernel.
Really subtle. Good catch.
So, now init is not part of any process group until it calls setsid().
So the above SIGKILL is lost right ? - i.e it does not kill even init
itself.
In my quick test, the following init process lives on inspite of the
SIGKILL.
main()
{
kill(0, SIGKILL);
while(1)
sleep(1);
}
I don't have a better solution. Maybe a hung init is better than a
crashed kernel. the patches look good.
Acked-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
--
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