lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: umh: fix processed error when UMH_WAIT_PROC is used seems to break linux bridge on s390x (bisected)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 07:22:34AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 26.06.20 04:54, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:37:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24.06.20 20:32, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >> [...]>
> >>> So the translations look correct. But your change is actually a sematic change
> >>> if(ret) will only trigger if there is an error
> >>> if (KWIFEXITED(ret)) will always trigger when the process ends. So we will always overwrite -ECHILD
> >>> and we did not do it before.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So the right fix is
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/umh.c b/kernel/umh.c
> >> index f81e8698e36e..a3a3196e84d1 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/umh.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/umh.c
> >> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static void call_usermodehelper_exec_sync(struct subprocess_info *sub_info)
> >> * the real error code is already in sub_info->retval or
> >> * sub_info->retval is 0 anyway, so don't mess with it then.
> >> */
> >> - if (KWIFEXITED(ret))
> >> + if (KWEXITSTATUS(ret))
> >> sub_info->retval = KWEXITSTATUS(ret);
> >> }
> >>
> >> I think.
> >
> > Nope, the right form is to check for WIFEXITED() before using WEXITSTATUS().
>
> But this IS a change over the previous code, no?
> I will test next week as I am travelling right now.

I'm all for reverting back to the previous behavior. If someone wants
a behavior change it should be a separate patch. And out of pure self
interest I'd like to see that change after my addition of the
kernel_wait helper to replace the kernel_wait4 abuse :)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-26 11:02    [W:0.136 / U:3.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site