[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161128121434.4it7yd7wmpkxv6f4@cedar>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:14:34 +0000
From: Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@...cle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: protect SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE from unintentional
clearing.
Hi Oleg,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 08:04:20PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/16, Jamie Iles wrote:
> >
> > This can result in init becoming stoppable/killable after tracing. For
> > example, running:
> >
> > while true; do kill -STOP 1; done &
> > strace -p 1
>
> > and then stopping strace and the kill loop will result in init being
> > left in state TASK_STOPPED. Sending SIGCONT to init will resume it, but
> > init will now respond to future SIGSTOP signals rather than ignoring
> > them.
>
> Yes, and a lot more... I forgot about these problems again.
>
> Jamie, sorry for delay, I'll try to read the patch and reply tomorrow.
Did you get chance to look at the patch? I did have another thought -
rather than the accessors, we could change signal_struct to have:
unsigned int unkillable:1;
unsigned int flags:31;
to separate signal_unkillable from flags, making it a bit safer in the
future.
Jamie
Powered by blists - more mailing lists