From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:12:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190211171252.GE21430@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190205025308.GA24455@visor>
sorry, I couldn't look at this patch before.
On 02/04, Ivan Delalande 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);
I won't argue, but do we really want this spam?
> + force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> + }
> return retval;
> }
> if (retval != -ENOEXEC || !bprm->file) {
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index e1d7ad8e6ab1..674076e63624 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -2552,10 +2552,10 @@ static void signal_delivered(struct ksignal *ksig, int stepping)
>
> void signal_setup_done(int failed, struct ksignal *ksig, int stepping)
> {
> - if (failed)
> - force_sigsegv(ksig->sig, current);
> - else
> + if (!failed)
> signal_delivered(ksig, stepping);
> + else if (!fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + force_sigsegv(ksig->sig, current);
The changelog doesn't explain this change.
OK, I guess it comes from the previous discussion, setup_rt_frame() can equally fail
if fatal_signal_pending(). But this should be documented at least in the changelog,
and I still think we could simply change force_sigsegv() instead.
In any case, Eric has already mentioned that we going to give SIGKILL more priority,
so I think we can drop this patch?
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-11 17:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-05 2:53 [PATCH v2] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal Ivan Delalande
2019-02-05 21:11 ` Andrew Morton
2019-02-06 3:10 ` Ivan Delalande
2019-02-08 5:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-09 0:16 ` Ivan Delalande
2019-02-10 17:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-02-11 23:25 ` Ivan Delalande
2019-02-11 16:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-02-11 17:12 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2019-02-11 23:20 ` Ivan Delalande
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190211171252.GE21430@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=0x7f454c46@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=colona@arista.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).