[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110822111402.GA13248@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:14:02 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, roland@...k.frob.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: +
prctl-add-pr_setget_child_reaper-to-allow-simple-process-supervision
.patch added to -mm tree
On 08/21, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> version 5:
> - add back check for &init_task
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Just one note, to avoid the "doesn't look correct" questions.
> @@ -987,6 +987,9 @@ static int copy_signal(unsigned long clo
> sig->oom_score_adj = current->signal->oom_score_adj;
> sig->oom_score_adj_min = current->signal->oom_score_adj_min;
>
> + sig->has_child_subreaper = current->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
> + current->signal->is_child_subreaper;
This assumes that current == parent. But this is not true with
CLONE_PARENT. If a task does prctl(REAPER) + clone(CLONE_PARENT)
->has_child_subreaper == T is not exactly right.
But I think this is fine and we do not care, a "wrong"
->has_child_subreaper is harmless and it can't be 100% correct in
any case.
I believe the patch is correct.
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