[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190206180754.GA23476@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 19:07:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
jolsa@...hat.com, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] signal: Store pending signal exit in tsk.jobctl not
in tsk.pending
Eric, at al,
Sorry, I am on on vacation, can't even read this thread right now,
so I am not sure I understand the problem correctly...
On 02/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> @@ -2393,6 +2393,11 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
> goto relock;
> }
>
> + /* Has this task already been flagged for death? */
> + ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
> + if (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_TASK_EXIT)
> + goto fatal;
> +
Can't we simply change, say, next_signal() to return SIGKILL if it is
pending?
In any case, I am not sure we need JOBCTL_TASK_EXIT. Can't we rely on
signal_group_exit() ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists