[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100613184334.6181.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:24:53 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] signals: introduce send_sigkill() helper
> Cleanup, no functional changes.
>
> There are a lot of buggy SIGKILL users in kernel. For example, almost
> every force_sig(SIGKILL) is wrong. force_sig() is not safe, it assumes
> that the task has the valid ->sighand, and in general it should be used
> only for synchronous signals. send_sig(SIGKILL, p, 1) or
> send_xxx(SEND_SIG_FORCED/SEND_SIG_PRIV) is not right too but this is not
> immediately obvious.
>
> The only way to correctly send SIGKILL is send_sig_info(SEND_SIG_NOINFO)
> but we do not want to use this directly, because we can optimize this
> case later. For example, zap_pid_ns_processes() allocates sigqueue for
> each process in namespace, this is unneeded.
>
> Introduce the trivial send_sigkill() helper on top of send_sig_info()
> and change zap_pid_ns_processes() as an example.
>
> Note: we need more cleanups here, this is only the first change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Great.
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.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