[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r2f5gr9g.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:23:39 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jürg Billeter <j@...ron.ch>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prctl: add PR_{GET,SET}_KILL_DESCENDANTS_ON_EXIT
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> On 11/27, Jürg Billeter wrote:
>>
>> @@ -704,6 +713,9 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_struct *tsk, int group_dead)
>> struct task_struct *p, *n;
>> LIST_HEAD(dead);
>>
>> + if (group_dead && tsk->signal->kill_descendants_on_exit)
>> + walk_process_tree(tsk, kill_descendant_visitor, NULL);
>
> Well, this is not exactly right, at least this is suboptimal in that
> other sub-threads can too call walk_process_tree(kill_descendant_visitor)
> later for no reason.
Oleg I think I am missing something.
Reading kernel/exit.c I see "group_dead = atomic_dec_and_test(&tsk->signal->live)".
Which seems like enough to ensure exactly one task/thread calls walk_process_tree.
Can you explain what I am missing?
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists