Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
        majiang <ma.jiang@zte.com.cn>
References: <877em2jxyr.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
        <20180711024459.10654-11-ebiederm@xmission.com>
        <20180711141456.GA6636@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:51:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20180711141456.GA6636@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of
        "Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:14:56 +0200")
Message-ID: <87y3efxk7j.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/11] signal: Ignore all but multi-process signals that come in during fork.
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:

> That is why I tried to sugest another approach. copy_process() should always fail
> if signal_pending() == T, just the "real" signal should not disturb the forking
> thread unless the signal is fatal or multi-process.

I understand now why you are suggesting another approach.  There are lot
of cases that could be affected by the removal of
"if (signal_pending()) return restart_syscall();" in copy_process.

I just shiver at the thought of leaving the code that way.  That is just
leaving a mess for later and the signal handling code already has way
too many of those.

So I am going to try and work through all of the cases.

I might even implement queueing shared signals for after the fork.  As
it is looking increasingly less difficult.

Eric