[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221123103016.GA32207@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 11:30:17 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Petr Skocik <pskocik@...il.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix kill(-1,s) returning 0 on 0 kills
On 11/22, Petr Skocik wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1600,20 +1600,18 @@ static int kill_something_info(int sig, struct kernel_siginfo *info, pid_t pid)
> ret = __kill_pgrp_info(sig, info,
> pid ? find_vpid(-pid) : task_pgrp(current));
> } else {
> - int retval = 0, count = 0;
> struct task_struct * p;
>
> + ret = -ESRCH;
> for_each_process(p) {
> if (task_pid_vnr(p) > 1 &&
> !same_thread_group(p, current)) {
> int err = group_send_sig_info(sig, info, p,
> PIDTYPE_MAX);
> - ++count;
> if (err != -EPERM)
> - retval = err;
> + ret = err; /*either all 0 or all -EINVAL*/
The patch looks good to me, and it also simplifies the code.
But I fail to understand the /*either all 0 or all -EINVAL*/ comment above..
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists