[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pmib9uhl.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:04:22 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] signal: break out of wait loops on kthread_stop()
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
>> Which I guess my long way of saying I think you can just change
>> kthread_stop to say:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
>> index 544fd4097406..52e9b3432496 100644
>> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
>> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
>> @@ -704,6 +704,7 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
>> kthread = to_kthread(k);
>> set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &kthread->flags);
>> kthread_unpark(k);
>> + set_tsk_thread_flag(k, TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL);
>> wake_up_process(k);
>> wait_for_completion(&kthread->exited);
>> ret = kthread->result;
>>
>
> Okay. I'll constrain it to just kthread_stop(). But please file away in
> the back of your mind the potential for kthread_park() to be problematic
> down the line, in case we have to fix that later.
Definitely. Right now I am certain you are motivated to test and make
certain the kthread_stop case will work. I just have the feeling that
we don't care enough about kthread_park, and so attempting to solve it
now is as likely to cause problems as solve them.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists