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:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:25:03 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc:     Zhenliang Wei <weizhenliang@huawei.com>, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        colona@arista.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        tglx@linutronix.de, deepa.kernel@gmail.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: trace_signal_deliver when signal_group_exit
Message-ID: <20190424132502.GE16167@redhat.com>
References: <20190424125238.83264-1-weizhenliang@huawei.com>
 <20190424130751.jckvq535ipfx5cq6@brauner.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190424130751.jckvq535ipfx5cq6@brauner.io>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04/24, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:52:38PM +0800, Zhenliang Wei wrote:
>
> > Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

Yes, but ...

> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>

Hmm, really?

> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -2441,6 +2441,8 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
> >  	if (signal_group_exit(signal)) {
> >  		ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
> >  		sigdelset(&current->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
> > +		trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
> > +			&sighand->action[signr - 1]);
>
> Hm, sorry for being the really nitpicky person here. Just for the sake
> of consistency how about we do either:
>
> +		trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
> +			&sighand->action[SIGKILL - 1]);
>
> or
>
> +		trace_signal_deliver(signr, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
> +			&sighand->action[signr - 1]);

Agreed!

Oleg.