On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 10:33:53AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/31/15 19:18), Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 10:10:35AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > On (12/31/15 19:08), Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > > re-upping > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit/2013-December/msg00086.html > > > > > > > > > > Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > :Because is_global_init() is only true for the main thread of > > > > > /sbin/init. > > > > > : > > > > > :Just look at oom_unkillable_task(). It tries to not kill init. But, > > > > > say, > > > > > :select_bad_process() can happily find a sub-thread of > > > > > is_global_init() > > > > > :and still kill it. > > > > > > > > > > this is still the case, isn't it? at least in some -stable kernels. > > > > > is there (or was there) any reason this change has never been > > > > > committed? > > > > > (I'm particularly interested in is_global_init()). > > > > > > > > ... seems like it makes sense. Can you remind us which init you're > > > > having > > > > to deal with? > > > > > > > > > > systemd > > > > > > -ss > > > > Well it makes sense to me. The question is whether we are protecting the > > thing running as init, or the 'physical' thread with pid 1. I think it's > > the former, so let's push on this. Please resend the patch with a proper > > signed-off-by, and feel free to add > > thanks. a bit puzzled, would reported-by Oleg and suggested-by Richard > be appropriate?
Sounds good. > (no objections if Oleg or Richard will submit it). > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@canonical.com> > > -ss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
