[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191021144633.GA2720@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:46:33 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] clone3: add CLONE_CLEAR_SIGHAND
On 10/14, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> The child helper process on Linux posix_spawn must ensure that no signal
> handlers are enabled, so the signal disposition must be either SIG_DFL
> or SIG_IGN. However, it requires a sigprocmask to obtain the current
> signal mask and at least _NSIG sigaction calls to reset the signal
> handlers for each posix_spawn call
Plus the caller has to block/unblock all signals around clone(VM|VFORK).
Can this justify the new CLONE_ flag? Honestly, I have no idea. But the
patch is simple and looks technically correct to me. FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists