Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:38:47 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] coredump: wait on the core pattern umh at least once | From | Scott James Remnant <> |
| |
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/29, Scott James Remnant wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > On 10/28, Scott James Remnant wrote: >> > > >> > > If a thread crashes as a result of a signal on the thread group leader >> > > that signal can still be pending, >> > >> > No. do_coredump() clears TIF_SIGPENDING. >> > >> I'm definitely seeing cases where SIGTERM sent to the process group >> that chrome is in results in one of chrome's thread's crashing (not >> your concern, obviously), but at the point it enters this function > > which function? wait_for_dump_helpers? > >> TIF_SIGPENDING is definitely set and the signal is SIGTERM. > > Yes, this is possible. But not as result of a signal which triggers > the coredumping. And once again, this clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING) > is simply wrong (I mean, not enough). > Makes sense.
>> > I already tried to explain why this signal_pending() was added, but >> > apparently I was not clear. I'll try again in the previous thread. >> > >> Could you add me to the Cc: of that thread? > > I thought you were cc'ed ;) Sorry, I didn't realiaze that these 2 > threads are totally separate. Please look at > > http://marc.info/?t=131959137800005 > > and at > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131989970411759 > > in particular. > Yeah I couldn't really work out why the signal_pending() was there either, I was trying to rework the loop to keep it on the assumption it was there for a reason - I'm quite happy that it get removed, that also fixes my problem :)
Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |