[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230816210634.GA10130@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 23:06:34 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Petr Skocik <pskocik@...il.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" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Fix the error return of kill -1
On 08/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > On 08/15, David Laight wrote:
> >>
> >> or maybe even:
> >> } else {
> >> struct task_struct * p;
> >> int err;
> >> ret = -ESRCH;
> >>
> >> for_each_process(p) {
> >> if (task_pid_vnr(p) > 1 &&
> >> !same_thread_group(p, current)) {
> >> err = group_send_sig_info(sig, info, p,
> >> PIDTYPE_MAX);
> >> if (ret)
> >> ret = err;
> >
> > Hmm, indeed ;)
> >
> > and "err" can be declared inside the loop.
>
> We can't remove the success case, from my posted patch.
>
> A signal is considered as successfully delivered if at least
> one process receives it.
Yes.
Initially ret = -ESRCH.
Once group_send_sig_info() succeeds at least once (returns zero)
ret becomes 0.
After that
if (ret)
ret = err;
has no effect.
So if a signal is successfully delivered at least once the code
above returns zero.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists