Messages in this thread Patch in this message | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:06:02 +0300 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | [PATCH 2/2] kill_something_info: really ignore -EPERM |
| |
kill(-1, sig) returns 0 if it has found some processes but there is no one for which we have permission to send the signal.
Doesn't it make more sense to return -ESRCH in this case?
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
--- eric-mm1/kernel/signal.c~2_perm 2006-12-16 22:17:52.000000000 +0300 +++ eric-mm1/kernel/signal.c 2006-12-16 22:22:48.000000000 +0300 @@ -1326,20 +1326,16 @@ static int kill_something_info(int sig, ret = kill_pid_info(sig, info, find_pid(pid)); } else if (pid == -1) { struct task_struct *p; - int found = 0; - ret = 0; + ret = -ESRCH; read_lock(&tasklist_lock); for_each_process(p) if (!is_init(p) && p != current->group_leader) { int err = group_send_sig_info(sig, info, p); if (err != -EPERM) ret = err; - found = 1; } read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); - if (!found) - ret = -ESRCH; } else { struct pid *grp = task_pgrp(current); if (pid != 0) - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |