[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190424130751.jckvq535ipfx5cq6@brauner.io>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:07:52 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To: Zhenliang Wei <weizhenliang@...wei.com>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, oleg@...hat.com, colona@...sta.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
deepa.kernel@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: trace_signal_deliver when signal_group_exit
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:52:38PM +0800, Zhenliang Wei wrote:
> In the fixes commit, removing SIGKILL from each thread signal mask
> and executing "goto fatal" directly will skip the call to
> "trace_signal_deliver". At this point, the delivery tracking of the SIGKILL
> signal will be inaccurate.
>
> Therefore, we need to add trace_signal_deliver before "goto fatal"
> after executing sigdelset.
>
> Note: SEND_SIG_NOINFO matches the fact that SIGKILL doesn't have any info.
>
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
I think we're supposed to use more Reviewed-bys so feel free (or Andrew)
to change this to:
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Fixes: cf43a757fd4944 ("signal: Restore the stop PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT")
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhenliang Wei <weizhenliang@...wei.com>
> ---
> kernel/signal.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 227ba170298e..3edf526db7c6 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2441,6 +2441,8 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
> if (signal_group_exit(signal)) {
> ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
> sigdelset(¤t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
> + trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
> + &sighand->action[signr - 1]);
Hm, sorry for being the really nitpicky person here. Just for the sake
of consistency how about we do either:
+ trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
+ &sighand->action[SIGKILL - 1]);
or
+ trace_signal_deliver(signr, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
+ &sighand->action[signr - 1]);
I'm not going to argue about this though. Can just also leave it as is.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists