Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:36 AM Eric W. Biederman
> <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>> Instead test SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP in signal_group_exit().
>
> You say "instead", but the patch itself doesn't agree:
>
>> static inline int signal_group_exit(const struct signal_struct *sig)
>> {
>> - return (sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT) ||
>> + return (sig->flags & (SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT | SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP)) ||
>> (sig->group_exit_task != NULL);
>> }
>
> it does it _in_addition_to_.
Hmm. I think I can change that line to:
>> Instead add a test for SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP in signal_group_exit().
Does that read better?
> I think the whole test for "sig->group_exit_task != NULL" should be
> removed for this commit to make sense.
The code change is designed not to have a behavioral change in
signal_group_exit(). As de_thread also sets sig->group_exit_task
the test for sig->group_exit_task needs to remain in signal_group_exit()
for the behavior of signal_group_exit() to remain unchanged.
Why do you think the test sig->group_exit_task != NULL should be removed
for the commit to make sense?
Eric
