On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 07:22:34AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 26.06.20 04:54, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:37:55PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 24.06.20 20:32, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> [...]> > >>> So the translations look correct. But your change is actually a sematic > >>> change > >>> if(ret) will only trigger if there is an error > >>> if (KWIFEXITED(ret)) will always trigger when the process ends. So we > >>> will always overwrite -ECHILD > >>> and we did not do it before. > >>> > >> > >> So the right fix is > >> > >> diff --git a/kernel/umh.c b/kernel/umh.c > >> index f81e8698e36e..a3a3196e84d1 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/umh.c > >> +++ b/kernel/umh.c > >> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static void call_usermodehelper_exec_sync(struct > >> subprocess_info *sub_info) > >> * the real error code is already in sub_info->retval or > >> * sub_info->retval is 0 anyway, so don't mess with it > >> then. > >> */ > >> - if (KWIFEXITED(ret)) > >> + if (KWEXITSTATUS(ret)) > >> sub_info->retval = KWEXITSTATUS(ret); > >> } > >> > >> I think. > > > > Nope, the right form is to check for WIFEXITED() before using WEXITSTATUS(). > > But this IS a change over the previous code, no? > I will test next week as I am travelling right now.
I'm all for reverting back to the previous behavior. If someone wants a behavior change it should be a separate patch. And out of pure self interest I'd like to see that change after my addition of the kernel_wait helper to replace the kernel_wait4 abuse :)
