Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes: > 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)".
So it was. I must have tired when I read the git log last night. 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/