[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150320190914.GA28357@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:09:14 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@...el.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] clone4: Add a CLONE_AUTOREAP flag to
automatically reap the child process
On 03/20, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday 20 March 2015 19:14:04 Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Also. I forgot that the kernel always resets ->exit_signal to SIGCHLD on
> > exec or reparenting. Reparenting is probably fine. But what about exec?
> > Should it keep ->exit_signal == 0 if "autoreap" ? I think it should not, to
> > avoid the strange special case.
>
> Not delivering any signal was the objective of this patch series, so yes
> exit_signal == 0 should survive an exec and even re-exec.
OK, but then perhaps we should never send SIGCHLD (on exit) if "autoreap",
to make the logic simple.
And copy_process() should probably do
if ((clone_flags & CSIGNAL) && (clone_flags && CLONE_AUTOREAP))
return -EINVAL;
so that we still can change this behaviour later.
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