[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111029141323.GA7036@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:13:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Scott James Remnant <scott@...split.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: wait on the core pattern umh at least once
On 10/28, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> If a thread crashes as a result of a signal on the thread group leader
> that signal can still be pending,
No. do_coredump() clears TIF_SIGPENDING.
The problem is, this is obviously not enough and should be fixed.
> While the helper obviously has to deal with that, tweaking this loop
> so it runs at least one iteration even in that case helps a lot.
I don't understand this patch. It doesn't look right at all.
> @@ -2030,11 +2030,11 @@ static void wait_for_dump_helpers(struct file *file)
> pipe->readers++;
> pipe->writers--;
>
> - while ((pipe->readers > 1) && (!signal_pending(current))) {
> + do {
> wake_up_interruptible_sync(&pipe->wait);
> kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
> pipe_wait(pipe);
This can hang forever. We didn't check pipe->readers, it it is zero
nobody can wakeup us.
> + } while ((pipe->readers > 1) && (!signal_pending(current)));
And, it doesn't make any sense to call pipe_wait() with signal_pending(),
it won't block. Note that pipe_wait() schedules in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE.
I already tried to explain why this signal_pending() was added, but
apparently I was not clear. I'll try again in the previous thread.
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