From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D9B16B01B5 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:01:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o5GA11u1019903 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:01:01 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04E945DE4E for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:01:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90AC45DE61 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:01:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F4F1DB8038 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:01:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD90E08001 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:00:59 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] signals: introduce send_sigkill() helper In-Reply-To: <20100613152918.GA8024@redhat.com> References: <20100610010023.GB4727@redhat.com> <20100613152918.GA8024@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20100616185942.72D2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:00:59 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , Roland McGrath , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , LKML , linux-mm , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin , Minchan Kim List-ID: > Andrew, please drop > > signals-introduce-send_sigkill-helper.patch > > I am stupid. > > On 06/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Cleanup, no functional changes. > > > > There are a lot of buggy SIGKILL users in kernel. For example, almost > > every force_sig(SIGKILL) is wrong. force_sig() is not safe, it assumes > > that the task has the valid ->sighand, and in general it should be used > > only for synchronous signals. send_sig(SIGKILL, p, 1) or > > send_xxx(SEND_SIG_FORCED/SEND_SIG_PRIV) is not right too but this is not > > immediately obvious. > > > > The only way to correctly send SIGKILL is send_sig_info(SEND_SIG_NOINFO) > > No, SEND_SIG_NOINFO doesn't work too. Oh, can't understand what I was > thinking about. current is the random task, but send_signal() checks > if the caller is from-parent-ns. > > > Note: we need more cleanups here, this is only the first change. > > We need the cleanups first. Until then oom-killer has to use force_sig() > if we want to kill the SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE tasks too. This definitely needed. OOM-Killer is not racist ;) Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org