Andrew Morton wrote:Yes, copy_process forbids cloning of signal handlers without cloning of vm.
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Isn't it better to just replace this code with/*
'BUG_ON(new_sigh != NULL)' ?
It is never executed, but totally broken, afaics.
task_lock() has nothing to do with ->sighand changing.
* Unsharing of sighand for tasks created with CLONE_SIGHAND is not
* supported yet
*/
static int unshare_sighand(unsigned long unshare_flags, struct sighand_struct **new_sighp)
It's all just a place-holder at present.
If we don't plan on ever supporting unshare(CLONE_SIGHAND) we should take
that code out and make it return EINVAL. Right now.
And because we don't presently support CLONE_SIGHAND we should return
EINVAL if it's set. Right now.
And we should change sys_unshare() to reject not-understood flags. Right
now.
If we don't do these things we'll silently break 2.6.16-back-compatibility
of applications which are coded for future kernels.
unshare_sighand() is ok, it never populates *new_sighp, it just returns
errror code: 0 when ->sighand is not shared, EINVAL otherwise.
I argued about 'if (new_sigh)' code in sys_unshare() because it lies about
locking rules.
Btw, copy_process() forbids CLONE_SIGHAND without CLONE_VM (is there a
good reason for that?), but one can do unshare(CLONE_VM). This is odd.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/