Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102b:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x11csp2745418ybt; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzvY/g58B++awbssGIkpDh/b2AErgrt8v38usb3UVvvRz/X9eo+OQlLUTJXlElNo4lwEYA X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7b54:: with SMTP id n20mr15394364ejo.144.1592831181113; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:06:21 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1592831181; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=sFFdZMzpkwxbGeTkjU1eOSOVRDLjRTItd+1jeUikZ7aFjoEsWZmq/yuwubNljVdo6W 9i2yvZBa/dD6kUJCKYqowmhgsFauNv176XD5A9t5auaQ3zVaEAZOf6m+sMfKS4WjxQSt 5Ay2mR4yDIgx4TCticpdGyyiI2+xkfgeXJjjJ4BhLEijYXmhykkufegiuve4xCPqv/yJ 17NVtbBoy8RIE32QHJCefYMNsM7bpF3+LzBikg1+hCenKl+gvh9T6L5jN6bn5y+cvCCd z4HtkHRDUL9NnFA1aQEIMuNV7aA0WhdGf4B+NjJ2hyWjl1KLso14xrkyMpuAJqS3o+I2 FV7A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=N17TIM5h83VO5ewPQ4BsyxfEB1OVVz4z1yBeqVRxshw=; b=qYwAKLhr8NMlvO/i/KYOLH4ERr+UG8foBt9xAi9+3jEMpchfS0cdk6YsoEvru4ASS9 RGbgkgdURAS0YJtVmFCu45ol5mmjVWVbKTo4GVgeuoRNFwqx74xM7uZRzI5yXhWus3ok cnrsVbcOiFb9SZgcA5LbkU6V1GXWmTSHHKfcHRsqHvQTU6GR0eMCI6DCAli7yTXBlFQJ MAKG9HsgAZW8ovJNBLnDHx6M16Fd2pJOHCS85JX1bHmu5jr2qpPHKiNMZbVDdZEh8m72 Il1vpEBN74ST4hpwFMa536/LcMn4AEiG5cbolOsJXiK3lcIDHopBtAr8Tbu1Qoz+m3JT 7bKQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o27si10078737edz.331.2020.06.22.06.05.58; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728005AbgFVNEL (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:04:11 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:37718 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728142AbgFVNEI (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:04:08 -0400 Received: from ip5f5af08c.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([95.90.240.140] helo=wittgenstein) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jnM7G-0006pW-OC; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:04:02 +0000 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:04:01 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Dominique Martinet , Alexander Kapshuk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kernel test robot Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal.c: Export symbol __lock_task_sighand Message-ID: <20200622130401.obopyfdqpdnc5ydt@wittgenstein> References: <20200621133704.77896-1-alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> <20200622062527.GA6516@redhat.com> <20200622083905.c3nurmkbo5yhd6lj@wittgenstein> <20200622102401.GA12377@nautica> <20200622113610.okzntx7jmnk6n7au@wittgenstein> <20200622120259.GD6516@redhat.com> <20200622122925.khcilncycuzb4xki@wittgenstein> <20200622130155.GE6516@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200622130155.GE6516@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 03:01:55PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/22, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > It is a supported case however unlikely. I just tried to answer > > Dominique's specific question pointing out that even in that unlikely > > case sighand_struct is stable. > > I too tried to say this, but apparently just added more confusion ;) > > > Just as an fyi, CLONE_SIGHAND with CLONE_VM but without CLONE_THREAD is > > actually used quite a bit, e.g. in newlib, in stress-ng, and in criu. > > OK, > > > you'd want CLONE_VM which enforces > > CLONE_SIGHAND so that would be another use-case afaict. > > Cough no ;) CLONE_SIGHAND requires CLONE_VM, not vice versa. Oh, you're right. I was thinking of ksys_unshare() here. :) /* * If unsharing vm, must also unshare signal handlers. */ if (unshare_flags & CLONE_VM) unshare_flags |= CLONE_SIGHAND; Thanks! Christian