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;
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 19:10:29 -0800
From:   Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending
 fatal signal
Message-ID: <20190206031029.GB9368@visor>
References: <20190205025308.GA24455@visor>
 <20190205131119.3e388a0a1a69c0a041ed87ef@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190205131119.3e388a0a1a69c0a041ed87ef@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:11:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:53:08 -0800 Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com> wrote:
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -1660,7 +1660,12 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> >  		if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) {
> >  			/* we got to flush_old_exec() and failed after it */
> >  			read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
> > -			force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> > +			if (!fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> > +				if (print_fatal_signals)
> > +					pr_info("load_binary() failed: %d\n",
> > +						retval);
> 
> Should we be using print_fatal_signal() here?

I don't think so, the force_sigsegv() already ensures it will be called
from get_signal() when the signal is handled, and so the process
information will be printed then.

> > +				force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> > +			}
> >  			return retval;
> >  		}
> >  		if (retval != -ENOEXEC || !bprm->file) {


Thanks,

-- 
Ivan Delalande
Arista Networks