[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgXROFSDa6gHei4fNmdU=VppqnBThdCraNpuirriSyKQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 13:52:07 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Pavel Begunkov>" <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] coredump: Do not interrupt dump for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 1:48 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like it would need to be:
>
> static bool dump_interrupted(void)
> {
> return fatal_signal_pending() || freezing();
> }
>
> As the original implementation of dump_interrupted 528f827ee0bb
> ("coredump: introduce dump_interrupted()") is deliberately allowing the
> freezer to terminate the core dumps to allow for reliable system
> suspend.
Ack. That would seem to be the right conversion to do.
Now, I'm not sure if system suspend really should abort a core dump,
but it's clearly what we have done in the past.
Maybe we'd like to remove that "|| freezing()" at some point, but
that's a separate discussion, I think. At least having it in that form
makes it all very explicit, instead of the current very subtle exact
interaction with the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL bit (that has other meanings).
Hmm?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists