Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:47:30 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy_process: remove the unneeded
	clear_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING)
Message-ID: <20090428124730.GA17868@redhat.com>
References: <20090427194845.GA6245@redhat.com> <20090428023919.E2311FC3C6@magilla.sf.frob.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090428023919.E2311FC3C6@magilla.sf.frob.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1116
Lines: 26

On 04/27, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
>
> > The forked child can have TIF_SIGPENDING if it was copied from parent's
> > ti->flags. But this is harmless and actually almost never happens, because
> > copy_process() can't succeed if signal_pending() == T.
>
> When it does happen, it's actually improper to clear it.  In a CLONE_THREAD
> case, the pending signals might include shared_pending signals that the
> child too should take.  (Arguably there is no way to notice, since the
> parent thread will be racing to dequeue the same signals.)

Yes, sure. Now I see the changelog is not very clear.

I meant, it is possible that the parent has the false TIF_SIGPENDING which
is cleared later by recalc_sigpending(). In this case it is correct to do
clear_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SIGPENDING), but this almost never happens.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/