Re: [PATCH v3 20/20] signal: Don't restart fork when signals come in.
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Thu Jul 26 2018 - 11:55:52 EST
On 07/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Are the earlier patches looking ok to you?
I obviously like 1-15.
"[PATCH 16/20] fork: Move and describe why the code examines PIDNS_ADDING"
is "interesting". I mean it is fine, but at the end of this series it doesn't
matter what we check first, PIDNS_ADDING or fatal_signal_pending() - restart
is not possible in both cases.
As for 17-20... Yes I am biased. But I still think the simple approach I tried
to propose from the very beginning is better. At least simpler, in that you do
not need to worry about all these special cases/reasons for signal_pending().
And you can not imagine how much I hate "[PATCH 19/20] fork: Have new threads
join on-going signal group stops" ;) Because I spent HOURS looking at this trivial
patch and I am still not sure...
To clarify, the CLONE_THREAD with JOBCTL_STOP_PENDING case is simple, I am mostly
worried about JOBCTL_TRAP_STOP/etc with or without CLONE_THREAD, this adds some
subtle changes but unfortunately I failed to find something wrong so I can't argue.