Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Jan 2016 02:51:29 -0500 | From | Richard Guy Briggs <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] is_global_init() called on global init sub-thread |
| |
On 16/01/01, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/31/15 19:18), Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 10:10:35AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > On (12/31/15 19:08), Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > > re-upping https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2013-December/msg00086.html > > > > > > > > > > Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > :Because is_global_init() is only true for the main thread of /sbin/init. > > > > > : > > > > > :Just look at oom_unkillable_task(). It tries to not kill init. But, say, > > > > > :select_bad_process() can happily find a sub-thread of is_global_init() > > > > > :and still kill it. > > > > > > > > > > this is still the case, isn't it? at least in some -stable kernels. > > > > > is there (or was there) any reason this change has never been committed? > > > > > (I'm particularly interested in is_global_init()). > > > > > > > > ... seems like it makes sense. Can you remind us which init you're having > > > > to deal with? > > > > > > > > > > systemd > > > > > > -ss > > > > Well it makes sense to me. The question is whether we are protecting the > > thing running as init, or the 'physical' thread with pid 1. I think it's > > the former, so let's push on this. Please resend the patch with a proper > > signed-off-by, and feel free to add > > thanks. a bit puzzled, would reported-by Oleg and suggested-by Richard > be appropriate? (no objections if Oleg or Richard will submit it).
This works for me. I have more patches related to it, but I'll re-submit them later.
> > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com> > > -ss
- RGB
-- Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@redhat.com> Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat Remote, Ottawa, Canada Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
| |