On 08/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 08/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > In the sense of document when these tests apply I think it makes a > > teensy bit of sense to have the CLONE_VM there. But if you want to send > > me a cosmetic patch that removes that I will add it to my tree, with the > > other two patches. > > Will do ;)
Yes, I still think it is pointless to check sighand->count if CLONE_VM. > Eric, I need to run away, I'll try to answer other parts of our confusing > discussion tomorrow. No, lest stop it. Yes, I was wrong, we can't avoid sighand->count check. Somehow I absolutely forgot that we also need to ensure that unshare(SIGHAND) can't wrongly _fail_. 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/