Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 17.01.2018 20:49, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Oleg Nesterov writes: > >> On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >>> Kirill Tkhai writes: >>> This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, so

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 17.01.2018 20:49, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Oleg Nesterov writes: > >> On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >>> Kirill Tkhai writes: >>> This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, so this commit and the problem it solves

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 17.01.2018 20:18, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Kirill Tkhai writes: > >> This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. >> >> send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, >> so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant >> anymore. >> >> Also, the problem of

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 17.01.2018 20:18, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Kirill Tkhai writes: > >> This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. >> >> send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, >> so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant >> anymore. >> >> Also, the problem of force_sig() is it clears

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov writes: > > >> To operate correctly, do_SAK() needs to kill everything that has the tty > >> open. Unless we can make that guarantee I don't see the point of > >> changing do_SAK. > > > > OK, but how this connects to this

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov writes: > > >> To operate correctly, do_SAK() needs to kill everything that has the tty > >> open. Unless we can make that guarantee I don't see the point of > >> changing do_SAK. > > > > OK, but how this connects to this change? > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

Oleg Nesterov writes: > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Oleg Nesterov writes: >> >> > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > >> >> Kirill Tkhai writes: >> >> >> >> > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. >> >> > >> >> > send_sig()

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

Oleg Nesterov writes: > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Oleg Nesterov writes: >> >> > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > >> >> Kirill Tkhai writes: >> >> >> >> > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. >> >> > >> >> > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, >> >> > so

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov writes: > > > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > >> Kirill Tkhai writes: > >> > >> > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. > >> > > >> > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, > >> > so

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov writes: > > > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > >> Kirill Tkhai writes: > >> > >> > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. > >> > > >> > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, > >> > so this commit and the problem it solves

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

Oleg Nesterov writes: > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Kirill Tkhai writes: >> >> > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. >> > >> > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, >> > so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

Oleg Nesterov writes: > On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Kirill Tkhai writes: >> >> > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. >> > >> > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, >> > so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant >> > anymore. >> > >> > Also, the

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Kirill Tkhai writes: > > > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. > > > > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, > > so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant > > anymore. > > > > Also, the problem of

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

On 01/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Kirill Tkhai writes: > > > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. > > > > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, > > so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant > > anymore. > > > > Also, the problem of force_sig() is it clears

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

Kirill Tkhai writes: > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. > > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, > so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant > anymore. > > Also, the problem of force_sig() is it clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE > flag, thus even

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

Kirill Tkhai writes: > This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. > > send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, > so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant > anymore. > > Also, the problem of force_sig() is it clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE > flag, thus even global init may be

[PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant anymore. Also, the problem of force_sig() is it clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE flag, thus even global init may be killed by __do_SAK(), which is

[PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "do_SAK: Don't recursively take the tasklist_lock"

This reverts commit 20ac94378de5. send_sig() does not take tasklist_lock for a long time, so this commit and the problem it solves are not relevant anymore. Also, the problem of force_sig() is it clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE flag, thus even global init may be killed by __do_SAK(), which is