[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210614165920.GD13677@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:59:21 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
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>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Pavel Begunkov>" <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Limit what can interrupt coredumps
On 06/14, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I would very much like some clarity on TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL. At the very
> least it would be nice if it could get renamed TIF_NOTIFY_TASK_WORK.
No, no, no ;)
I think that, for example, freezer should be changed to use
set_notify_signal() rather than fake_signal_wake_up(). Livepatch.
And probably it will have more users.
> I don't understand the logic with well enough of adding work to
> non-io_uring threads with task_work_add to understand why that happens
> in the first place.
Same here.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists