Hi, Oleg:
On 10/16/18 7:14 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/15, Enke Chen wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand why we need valid_predump_signal() at all.
>>
>> Most of the signals have well-defined semantics, and would not be appropriate
>> for this purpose.
>
> you are going to change the rules anyway.
>
>> That is why it is limited to only SIGCHLD, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2.
>
> Which do not queue. So the parent won't get the 2nd signal if 2 children
> crash at the same time.
>
>>>> if (sig_kernel_coredump(signr)) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Notify the parent prior to the coredump if the
>>>> + * parent is interested in such a notificaiton.
>>>> + */
>>>> + int p_sig = current->real_parent->predump_signal;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (valid_predump_signal(p_sig)) {
>>>> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>>>> + do_notify_parent_predump(current);
>>>> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>>>> + cond_resched();
>>>
>>> perhaps this should be called by do_coredump() after coredump_wait() kills
>>> all the sub-threads?
>>
>> proc_coredump_connector(current) is located here, they should stay together.
>
> Why?
>
> Once again, other threads are still alive. So if the parent restarts the
> service
> after it recieves -predump_signal, the new process can "race" with the old
> thread.
Yes, it is a good idea to do the signal notification in do_coredump() after
coredump_wait(). Will make the change as suggested.
Thanks. -- Enke
