On 11/19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> At least, don't we also need the patch below?
>
> --- a/kernel/utrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/utrace.c
> @@ -2002,7 +2002,7 @@ int utrace_get_signal(struct task_struct
> spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> }
>
> - if (resume > UTRACE_REPORT) {
> + if (resume > UTRACE_REPORT && utrace < UTRACE_RESUME) {
> /*
> * We only got here to process utrace->resume.
> * Despite no callbacks, this report is not spurious.
No, this is wrong. Please see below.
Oleg.
--- a/kernel/utrace.c
+++ b/kernel/utrace.c
@@ -2007,9 +2007,11 @@ int utrace_get_signal(struct task_struct
* We only got here to process utrace->resume.
* Despite no callbacks, this report is not spurious.
*/
- report.action = resume;
- report.spurious = false;
- finish_resume_report(task, utrace, &report);
+ if (resume != UTRACE_RESUME) {
+ report.action = resume;
+ report.spurious = false;
+ finish_resume_report(task, utrace, &report);
+ }
return -1;
} else if (!(task->utrace_flags & UTRACE_EVENT(QUIESCE))) {
/*
