Peter, sorry for delay, I was sick.

On 09/17, Peter Hurley wrote:
>
> On 09/15/2013 11:50 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
>> Put the "!on_exit" check back to restore the old behaviour.
>>
>> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v3.10+
>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
>> Reported-by: Karel Srot <ks...@redhat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Hurley <pe...@hurleysoftware.com>

Thanks!

Can I ask the question? tty_signal_session_leader() is probably fine,
but it _looks_ buggy or at least confusing to me.

                do_each_pid_task(tty->session, PIDTYPE_SID, p) {
                        spin_lock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
                        if (p->signal->tty == tty) {
                                p->signal->tty = NULL;
                                /* We defer the dereferences outside fo
                                   the tasklist lock */
                                refs++;
                        }
                        if (!p->signal->leader) {
                                spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
                                continue;
                        }
                        __group_send_sig_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p);
                        __group_send_sig_info(SIGCONT, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p);
                        put_pid(p->signal->tty_old_pgrp);  /* A noop */
                        spin_lock(&tty->ctrl_lock);
                        tty_pgrp = get_pid(tty->pgrp);

I guess this can happen only once, so we could even add WARN_ON(tty_pgrp)
before get_pid(). But this look confusing, as if we can do get_pid()
multiple times and leak tty->pgrp.

                        if (tty->pgrp)
                                p->signal->tty_old_pgrp = get_pid(tty->pgrp);

else? We already did put_pid(tty_old_pgrp), we should clear it.

IOW, do you think the patch below makes sense or I missed something?
Just curious.

Oleg.

--- x/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
+++ x/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
@@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static int tty_signal_session_leader(str
 {
        struct task_struct *p;
        int refs = 0;
-       struct pid *tty_pgrp = NULL;
+       struct pid *tty_pgrp = tty_get_pgrp(tty);
 
        read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
        if (tty->session) {
@@ -560,18 +560,12 @@ static int tty_signal_session_leader(str
                                   the tasklist lock */
                                refs++;
                        }
-                       if (!p->signal->leader) {
-                               spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
-                               continue;
+                       if (p->signal->leader) {
+                               __group_send_sig_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p);
+                               __group_send_sig_info(SIGCONT, SEND_SIG_PRIV, 
p);
+                               put_pid(p->signal->tty_old_pgrp);  /* A noop */
+                               p->signal->tty_old_pgrp = get_pid(tty_pgrp);
                        }
-                       __group_send_sig_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p);
-                       __group_send_sig_info(SIGCONT, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p);
-                       put_pid(p->signal->tty_old_pgrp);  /* A noop */
-                       spin_lock(&tty->ctrl_lock);
-                       tty_pgrp = get_pid(tty->pgrp);
-                       if (tty->pgrp)
-                               p->signal->tty_old_pgrp = get_pid(tty->pgrp);
-                       spin_unlock(&tty->ctrl_lock);
                        spin_unlock_irq(&p->sighand->siglock);
                } while_each_pid_task(tty->session, PIDTYPE_SID, p);
        }

--
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/

Reply via email to