[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130217200103.GC22544@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:01:03 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] coredump: fix the ancient signal problems
On 02/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/17, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > SIGKILL really is very very special. Having it kill a
> > coredump in progress sounds fine to me.
>
> Great.
Forgot to mention just in case...
We could probably make a simpler patch. do_coredump() can ignore
all signals except SIGKILL from the start. But when I suggested
this change in the past I was told that the dump handler looks
(or may look) at /proc/pid/status so we shouldn't do this.
And instead of s/SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT/group_exit_task/ in 2/3 we
could add the ugly but simple checks in __send_signal() paths.
Say we could rely on PF_DUMPCORE (which btw asks for cleanup
anyway).
However, I think that using ->group_exit_task is better (if
correct!) and simply more logical.
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