[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170405164429.GG14536@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:44:30 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Attila Fazekas <afazekas@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] exec: If possible don't wait for ptraced
threads to be reaped
On 04/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > I meant that may_hang == 0 implies zap_other_threads(do_count => -1) which should
> > return the number of threads which didn't pass exit_notify(). The returned value
> > can be wrong unless you change exit_notify() to set exit_state under
> > siglock.
but I forgot to add that, of course, this problem is very minor because
we can only miss a thread which is already at the end of exit_notify()
so nothing bad can happen.
But imo should be fixed anyway, simply because this looks wrong/racy.
Your recent 4/5 has the same problem.
> Interesting an existing bug.
Hmm... what do you mean? The current code looks fine.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists