Re: [PATCH 1/1] signals: introduce send_sigkill() helper

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> Andrew, please drop
> 
> 	signals-introduce-send_sigkill-helper.patch
> 
> I am stupid.
> 
> On 06/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Cleanup, no functional changes.
> >
> > There are a lot of buggy SIGKILL users in kernel. For example, almost
> > every force_sig(SIGKILL) is wrong. force_sig() is not safe, it assumes
> > that the task has the valid ->sighand, and in general it should be used
> > only for synchronous signals. send_sig(SIGKILL, p, 1) or
> > send_xxx(SEND_SIG_FORCED/SEND_SIG_PRIV) is not right too but this is not
> > immediately obvious.
> >
> > The only way to correctly send SIGKILL is send_sig_info(SEND_SIG_NOINFO)
> 
> No, SEND_SIG_NOINFO doesn't work too. Oh, can't understand what I was
> thinking about. current is the random task, but send_signal() checks
> if the caller is from-parent-ns.
> 
> > Note: we need more cleanups here, this is only the first change.
> 
> We need the cleanups first. Until then oom-killer has to use force_sig()
> if we want to kill the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE tasks too.

This definitely needed. OOM-Killer is not racist ;)

Thanks.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/