lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE and init again
Hi Oleg,

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:16:51PM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:18:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hi Jamie,
> >
> > On 04/25, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Oleg,
> > >
> > > I'm back looking at SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE and debugging child reapers again,
> > > and the current issue is when running code in the target process,
> > > SIGTRAP firing and that causing SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE protection to be
> > > removed in force_sig_info():
> > >
> > > if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
> > > t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> >
> > Yes, this is what I meant when I said force_sig_info() needs changes too.
> > I was going to fix it "tomorrow" but I was distracted and then forgot.
> >
> > > @@ -1185,7 +1185,7 @@ force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t)
> > > recalc_sigpending_and_wake(t);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > - if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
> > > + if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL && !t->ptrace)
> > > t->signal->flags &= ~SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE;
> > > ret = specific_send_sig_info(sig, info, t);
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> >
> > Not sure, let me think a bit more... and this is not enough anyway.
> >
> > perhaps we should start with this simple change, but the "real" fix
> > needs a lot of cleanups, although I am not sure if we will ever do this.
>
> Okay, sounds good. I'm happy to spend more time looking at this if you
> have suggestions - in the context of namespaces and containers this
> seems more relevant than when it was just the system init that we were
> protecting.

Any objections to moving ahead with this patch?

Thanks,

Jamie

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-14 11:32    [W:0.040 / U:2.068 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site