[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150319150427.GA12624@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:04:28 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: improve warning about using SI_TKILL in
rt_[tg]sigqueueinfo
On 03/19, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 02:00:46PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > but perhaps we can simply remove this warning at all?
>
> We can, I suppose. Personally, I do not have any strong preference.
Me too, but personally I like this version more ;)
> From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] signal: remove warning about using SI_TKILL in
> rt_[tg]sigqueueinfo
>
> Sending SI_TKILL from rt_[tg]sigqueueinfo was deprecated, so now we
> issue a warning on the first attempt of doing it. We use WARN_ON_ONCE,
> which is not informative and, what is worse, taints the kernel, making
> the trinity syscall fuzzer complain false-positively from time to time.
>
> It does not look like we need this warning at all, because the behaviour
> changed quite a long time ago (2.6.39), and if an application relies on
> the old API, it gets EPERM anyway and can issue a warning by itself.
>
> So let us zap the warning in kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
--
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