Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:25:26 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix handling of SIGCHILD from reaped child |
| |
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:57 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
> > I'd suggest to make a separate function, but not complicate collect_signal(). > okay. I'll try again if people admit me to go ahead.
> > --- linux-2.6.20-devel.orig/kernel/exit.c > > +++ linux-2.6.20-devel/kernel/exit.c > > @@ -1252,8 +1252,12 @@ static int wait_task_zombie(struct task_ > > } > > write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > > } > > - if (p != NULL) > > + if (p != NULL) { > > release_task(p); > > + /* if we received sigchild from "p" and p is released, > > + we remove sigchild from it. */ > > current may be ptracer, not a parent. Should be ok, clear_stale_sigchild(pid) > can't have a false positive (until we have namespace for pid_t), but the comment > is misleading a bit. > I'll rewrite and make this clearer.
> > + clear_stale_sigchild(current, retval); > > But we are not checking that SIGCHLD is blocked? > I'm sorry if I don't read SUSv3 correctly. SUSv3 doesn't define how we should do if SIGCHLD is not blocked.(so I don't check not-blocked case.)
IMHO, user's sig-child-handler is tend to call wait()/waitpid() and expects successful return. So removing stale signal here may be good.
If this breaks assumptions of applications on Linux, I'll not go eagerly.
Thanks, -Kame
- 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/
| |