On 08/11, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes: > > >> 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
Good, > > How about the patch below? > > > > (note that the "or parent" part of the comment is wrong in any case). > > It was correct. Yes, I know, > You failed to removed it when you removed CLONE_PARENT > from that test. Cough... it was you ;) 1f7f4dde5c945f41a7abc2285be43d918029ecc5 "fork: Allow CLONE_PARENT after setns(CLONE_NEWPID)". Oleg. -- 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/