Re: [PATCH] coredump: wait on the core pattern umh at least once

[Scott James Remnant]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/29, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/28, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>> > >
>> > > If a thread crashes as a result of a signal on the thread group leader
>> > > that signal can still be pending,
>> >
>> > No. do_coredump() clears TIF_SIGPENDING.
>> >
>> I'm definitely seeing cases where SIGTERM sent to the process group
>> that chrome is in results in one of chrome's thread's crashing (not
>> your concern, obviously), but at the point it enters this function
>
> which function? wait_for_dump_helpers?
>
>> TIF_SIGPENDING is definitely set and the signal is SIGTERM.
>
> Yes, this is possible. But not as result of a signal which triggers
> the coredumping. And once again, this clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING)
> is simply wrong (I mean, not enough).
>
Makes sense.

>> > I already tried to explain why this signal_pending() was added, but
>> > apparently I was not clear. I'll try again in the previous thread.
>> >
>> Could you add me to the Cc: of that thread?
>
> I thought you were cc'ed ;) Sorry, I didn't realiaze that these 2
> threads are totally separate. Please look at
>
>        http://marc.info/?t=131959137800005
>
> and at
>        http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131989970411759
>
> in particular.
>
Yeah I couldn't really work out why the signal_pending() was there
either, I was trying to rework the loop to keep it on the assumption
it was there for a reason - I'm quite happy that it get removed, that
also fixes my problem :)

Scott
--
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/