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

[Neil Horman]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:01:44AM -0700, 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
> TIF_SIGPENDING is definitely set and the signal is SIGTERM.
> 
> The SIGTERM is in the shared pending set.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Scott
> 
FWIW, this is the (huge) thread, and specific post that originated the change
we're looking at:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/2/98
Neil

--
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/