[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180117173415.GA7964@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:34:15 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
jslaby@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the
tasklist_lock"
On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> writes:
>
> > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5.
> >
> > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time,
> > so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant
> > anymore.
> >
> > Also, the problem of force_sig() is it clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE
> > flag, thus even global init may be killed by __do_SAK(),
> > which is definitely not the expected behavior.
>
> Actually it is.
>
> SAK should kill everything that has the tty open. If init opens the tty
> I am so sorry, it can not operate correctly. init should not have your
> tty open.
OK, but then we need "force" in other places too. __do_SAK() does send_sig(SIGKILL)
in do_each_pid_task(PIDTYPE_SID) and if signal->tty == tty.
Plus force_sig() is not rcu-friendly.
So I personally agree with this change. Whether we want to kill the global init
or not should be discussed, if we want to do this __do_SAK() should use
SEND_SIG_FORCED and this is what Kirill is going to do (iiuc), but this needs
another patch.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists