Re: [PATCH] signal: Fix the error return of kill -1

[Eric W. Biederman]

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 08/15, David Laight wrote:
>>
>> or maybe even:
>> 	} else {
>> 		struct task_struct * p;
>> 		int err;
>> 		ret = -ESRCH;
>>
>> 		for_each_process(p) {
>> 			if (task_pid_vnr(p) > 1 &&
>> 					!same_thread_group(p, current)) {
>> 				err = group_send_sig_info(sig, info, p,
>> 							  PIDTYPE_MAX);
>> 				if (ret)
>> 					ret = err;
>
> Hmm, indeed ;)
>
> and "err" can be declared inside the loop.

We can't remove the success case, from my posted patch.

A signal is considered as successfully delivered if at least
one process receives it.

That is something the current code for kill -1 actually gets
wrong (but hides because it ignores -EPERM).

Otherwise yes I expect we can simplify the use of variables as
suggested.

Eric