[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220607152627.GA10192@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 17:26:54 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, tj@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
Robert OCallahan <roc@...nos.co>, Kyle Huey <khuey@...nos.co>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Douglas Miller <dougmill@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/16] signal: Wake up the designated parent
On 06/06, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Which if I have had enough sleep reduces this patch to just:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index f072959fcab7..c8156366b722 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -1431,8 +1431,10 @@ static int child_wait_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode,
> if (!eligible_pid(wo, p))
> return 0;
>
> - if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wait->private != p->parent)
> - return 0;
> + if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) &&
> + (wait->private != p->parent) &&
> + (wait->private != p->real_parent))
> + return 0;
>
> return default_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key);
> }
>
>
> I think that solves the issue without missing wake-ups without adding
> any more.
Agreed, and looks much simpler.
> For the same set of reasons it looks like the __wake_up_parent in
> __ptrace_detach is just simply dead code. I don't think there is a case
> where when !ptrace_reparented the thread that is the real_parent can
> sleep in do_wait when the thread that was calling ptrace could not.
Yes... this doesn't really differ from the case when one thread reaps
a natural child and another thread sleep in do_wait().
> That needs a very close look to confirm.
Yes.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists