Mandeep, sorry for delay.
On 02/20, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Mandeep Singh Baines
> wrote:
> > Ah. Good point. How about this then:
> >
> > /* can't use wait_event_freezable since we suppress the fake signal on
> > SIGNAL_GROUP_COREDUMP */
> > freezer_do_
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Mandeep Singh Baines
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 02/19, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> > Please look at 1-3 I sent. Btw, I slightly tested this series, seem
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/19, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> > Please look at 1-3 I sent. Btw, I slightly tested this series, seems
>> > to work...
>> >
>>
>> They look good to me. I plan on applying
On 02/19, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Please look at 1-3 I sent. Btw, I slightly tested this series, seems
> > to work...
> >
>
> They look good to me. I plan on applying them to our tree since we
> need a fix ASAP.
Great!
> >> You'd
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/18, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >> --- x/fs/coredump.c
>> >> +++ x/fs/coredump.c
>> >> @@ -416,17 +416,17 @@ static void wait_for_dump_helpers(struct
>> >> pipe_lock
On 02/18, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >> Why? __fatal_signal_pending() is enough, you do not need to check
> >> ->shared_pending. And once again, ignoring the freezer problems I
> >> do not think we need this check at all.
> >>
>
>
On 02/18, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> --- x/fs/coredump.c
> >> +++ x/fs/coredump.c
> >> @@ -416,17 +416,17 @@ static void wait_for_dump_helpers(struct
> >> pipe_lock(pipe);
> >> pipe->readers++;
> >> pipe->writers--;
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 02/16, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>> >
>> > +static int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> > +{
>> > + return signal_pending(tsk) &&
>> > + (sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIG
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 02/16, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>> >
>> > +static int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> > +{
>> > + return signal_pending(tsk) &&
>> > + (sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIG
On 02/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/16, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> >
> > +static int sigkill_pending(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > + return signal_pending(tsk) &&
> > + (sigismember(&tsk->pending.signal, SIGKILL) ||
> > +sigismember(&tsk->signal->shared_pendin
On 02/16, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> Make wait_for_dump_helpers() not abort piping the core dump data when the
> crashing process has received a non-fatal signal. The abort still occurs
> in the case of SIGKILL.
>
> Testing:
>
> localhost ~ # echo "|/usr/bin/sleep 1d" > /proc/sys/kernel/core_
From: Ben Chan
Make wait_for_dump_helpers() not abort piping the core dump data when the
crashing process has received a non-fatal signal. The abort still occurs
in the case of SIGKILL.
Testing:
localhost ~ # echo "|/usr/bin/sleep 1d" > /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
localhost ~ # sleep 1d &
[1
12 matches
Mail list logo