[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151015151819.GA22187@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:18:19 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "kmod: handle UMH_WAIT_PROC from system
unbound workqueue"
On 10/15, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:52:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > This reverts commit bb304a5c6fc63d8506cd9741a3a5f35b73605625.
> >
> > Because this patch leads to kthread zombies.
> >
> > call_usermodehelper_exec_sync() does fork() + wait() with "unignored"
> > SIGCHLD. What we have missed is that this worker thread can have other
> > children previously forked by call_usermodehelper_exec_work() without
> > UMH_WAIT_PROC. If such a child exits in between it becomes a zombie
> > and nobody can reap it (unless/until this worker thread exits too).
>
> I missed that indeed.
Heh me too ;)
> But then when we create the async thread with
> UMH_NO_WAIT, who reaps it? It's created by the workqueue which never
> exits.
It is auto-reaped because SIGCHILD is ignored. And this is why
bb304a5c6fc6 is wrong; it can die while UMH_WAIT_PROC case waits
for the new child.
> And on others cases, who buries the sync thread?
The same.
Please see V2 I sent. I'll try to send more cleanups soon to make
this all more explicit.
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