Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:31:16 +0400 Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On top of Eric's > > kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch > > Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against > signals. > This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only bl

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > jffs2 actually wants its head examined. W. T. F. does it think it's > doing in there? Good question, especially with respect to SIGHUP. It is on my short list of very annoying kernel threads... NFS and a few kernel threads others currently need a way

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:13:32 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On top of Eric's > > > > kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch > > > > Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against > > signal

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On top of Eric's > > kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch > > Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against > signals. > This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only blocks signal_wake_up(). > Every "kill

[PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On top of Eric's kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against signals. This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only blocks signal_wake_up(). Every "killall -33 kthreadd" means a "struct siginfo" leak. Change