[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120210200108.GD20898@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:01:08 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] signal: zap_pid_ns_processes:
s/SEND_SIG_NOINFO/SEND_SIG_FORCED/
Change zap_pid_ns_processes() to use SEND_SIG_FORCED, it looks more
clear compared to SEND_SIG_NOINFO which relies on from_ancestor_ns
logic send_signal().
It is also more effecient if we need to kill a lot of tasks because
it doesn't alloc sigqueue.
While at it, add the __fatal_signal_pending(task) check as a minor
optimization.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
kernel/pid_namespace.c | 8 ++------
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/pid_namespace.c b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
index a896839..17b2328 100644
--- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
+++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
@@ -168,13 +168,9 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
while (nr > 0) {
rcu_read_lock();
- /*
- * Any nested-container's init processes won't ignore the
- * SEND_SIG_NOINFO signal, see send_signal()->si_fromuser().
- */
task = pid_task(find_vpid(nr), PIDTYPE_PID);
- if (task)
- send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, task);
+ if (task && !__fatal_signal_pending(task))
+ send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED, task);
rcu_read_unlock();
--
1.5.5.1
--
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