On 08/21, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Oleg Nesterov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > @@ -1841,14 +1865,6 @@ relock: > > if (sig_kernel_ignore(signr)) /* Default is nothing. */ > > continue; > > > > - /* > > - * Init of a pid space gets no signals it doesn't want from > > - * within that pid space. It can of course get signals from > > - * its parent pid space. > > - */ > > - if (current == child_reaper(current)) > > - continue; > > - > > Ok, so the idea is that this will now be caught when the signal is sent, > using sig_ignored(), (i.e at send_sigqueue, send_group_sigqueue, > specific_send_sig_info, and __group_send_sig_info) and so doesn't need > to be checked here?
Yes. > I was hoping that meant that sig_init_ignore() would always be called > with current as the sending process, but I guess that's not the case? Usually current == sender, but if the signal was sent from interrupt context, current is some random process. > At least in get_signal_to_deliver() we might resend a signal, though > I guess we assume the signal comes from current->parent, so maybe we > can pass that as an argument... get_signal_to_deliver() might resend a signal, but only when current is ptraced. In that case the signal will be delivered even if we are init, no problem. (except that ptracing of sub-namespace init is problem by itself). Thanks for looking at this! Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
