lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:11:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:53:08 -0800 Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com> wrote:
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -1660,7 +1660,12 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) {
> > /* we got to flush_old_exec() and failed after it */
> > read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
> > - force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> > + if (!fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> > + if (print_fatal_signals)
> > + pr_info("load_binary() failed: %d\n",
> > + retval);
>
> Should we be using print_fatal_signal() here?

I don't think so, the force_sigsegv() already ensures it will be called
from get_signal() when the signal is handled, and so the process
information will be printed then.

> > + force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> > + }
> > return retval;
> > }
> > if (retval != -ENOEXEC || !bprm->file) {


Thanks,

--
Ivan Delalande
Arista Networks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-06 04:11    [W:0.198 / U:1.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site