Messages in this thread |  | | From | Kay Sievers <> | | Date | Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:44:46 +0200 | | Subject | Re: + prctl-add-pr_setget_child_reaper-to-allow-simple-process-supervision .patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 14:25, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/19, Kay Sievers wrote: >> + /* find the first ancestor marked as child_subreaper */ >> + for (reaper = father->real_parent; >> + reaper != reaper->real_parent; > > This looks mysterious. This relies on the fact that INIT_TASK(tsk) > sets .real_parent = tsk. "reaper != &init_task" looks much more clean. > > But. Now that you check ->has_child_subreaper before the lookup, > this problem should go away? I mean, if ->has_child_subreaper == T > then some of our parents is the userspace task. Even if it was > spawned by kthread and then exited, we can't miss ->child_reaper > in the parents chain.
That's right. We only ever look at 'flagged' processes now, and no other than a userspace process can ever be tagged. We can just walk up to ->child_reaper.
> Or I missed something?
I think that's right. I'll test it.
>> + case PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER: >> + me->signal->is_child_subreaper = !!arg2; >> + me->signal->has_child_subreaper = true; > > Hmm. This looks wrong... why do we set ->has_child_subreaper?
That's the flag we pass down to our childs, hence we need to set it here.
Kay -- 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/
|  |