[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131223142636.GA24504@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:26:36 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: naveen yadav <yad.naveen@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vaibhav Shinde <v.bhav.shinde@...il.com>,
Ajeet Yadav <ajeet.yadav.77@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] secure unlock_task_sighand() call
On 12/23, naveen yadav wrote:
>
> Happy Christmas !!!
Thanks, the same to you ;)
> We are facing OOPS during core dump on kernel 3.8.x on ARM target.
Do you have any traces? Any additional info?
Can you try the fresh kernels?
Not that I can recall any change in this area which could help, but
perhaps this is arm specific...
> So we were doing core review and found this.
Do you mean that with this patch the kernel doesn't crash?
> Also I think in zap_process() there is no need to send SIGKILL to
> ZOMBIE or DEAD process.
Yes, it would be very wrong to account a zombie, but:
> --- a/fs/coredump.c
> +++ b/fs/coredump.c
> @@ -271,17 +271,19 @@ static int zap_process(struct task_struct
> *start, int exit_code)
>
> - if (t != current && t->mm) {
> + if (t->exit_state) {
> + nr++;
> + } else if (t != current && t->mm) {
This change adds no harm, but it is misleading and unneeded. Please note
that t->mm != NULL && t->exit_state != 0 is not possible, exit_mm() is
called before exit_notify(). IOW, a zombie thread can't have ->mm.
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