Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes: > On 08/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >> On 08/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> > >> > So I have to ask. >> >> I hope you are asking someone else, not me ;) I never understood what >> exactly we try to restrict and why. >> >> > Is it possible to rework these checks such that we >> > look at the sighand struct and signal sharing handling sharing instead >> > of the count on the mm_struct? >> >> Then why we can't simply check thread_group_empty() == T ? Why should we >> worry about CLONE_SIGHAND at all? > > The same for clone() actually... I forgot why we decided to check > CLONE_SIGHAND, iirc I suggested CLONE_THREAD initially then we switched > to CLONE_SIGHAND "just in case", to make it as strict as possible.
I do agree that making the test be for CLONE_THREAD is safe, makes sense, and is less confusing than what we have now.x > How about the patch below? > > (note that the "or parent" part of the comment is wrong in any case). It was correct. You failed to removed it when you removed CLONE_PARENT from that test. Eric -- 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/