Re: [PATCH] drbd: do not ignore signals in threads

2019-08-12 Thread Philipp Reisner
Hi David, [...] > While our code is 'out of tree' (you really don't want it - and since > it still uses force_sig() is fine) I suspect that the 'drdb' code > (with Christoph's allow_signal() patch) now loops in kernel if a user > sends it a signal. I am not asking for that out of tree code. But y

RE: [PATCH] drbd: do not ignore signals in threads

2019-08-12 Thread David Laight
From: Philipp Reisner > Sent: 12 August 2019 12:53 > Hi Jens, > > Please have a look. > > With fee109901f392 Eric W. Biederman changed drbd to use send_sig() > instead of force_sig(). That was part of a series that did this change > in multiple call sites tree wide. Which, by accident broke drbd,

Re: [PATCH] drbd: do not ignore signals in threads

2019-08-12 Thread Philipp Reisner
Hi Jens, Please have a look. With fee109901f392 Eric W. Biederman changed drbd to use send_sig() instead of force_sig(). That was part of a series that did this change in multiple call sites tree wide. Which, by accident broke drbd, since the signals are _not_ allowed by default. That got relea

RE: [PATCH] drbd: do not ignore signals in threads

2019-08-05 Thread David Laight
From: Christoph Böhmwalder > Sent: 05 August 2019 10:33 > > On 29.07.19 10:50, David Laight wrote: > > Doesn't unmasking the signals and using send_sig() instead of force_sig() > > have the (probably unwanted) side effect of allowing userspace to send > > the signal? > > I have ran some tests, a

Re: [PATCH] drbd: do not ignore signals in threads

2019-08-05 Thread Christoph Böhmwalder
On 29.07.19 10:50, David Laight wrote: > Doesn't unmasking the signals and using send_sig() instead of force_sig() > have the (probably unwanted) side effect of allowing userspace to send > the signal? I have ran some tests, and it does look like it is now possible to send signals to the DRBD kth

RE: [PATCH] drbd: do not ignore signals in threads

2019-07-29 Thread David Laight
From: Christoph Böhmwalder > Sent: 29 July 2019 09:33 > Fix a regression introduced by upstream commit fee109901f39 > ('signal/drbd: Use send_sig not force_sig'). > > Currently, when a thread is initialized, all signals are set to be > ignored by default. DRBD uses SIGHUP to end its threads, which

[PATCH] drbd: do not ignore signals in threads

2019-07-29 Thread Christoph Böhmwalder
Fix a regression introduced by upstream commit fee109901f39 ('signal/drbd: Use send_sig not force_sig'). Currently, when a thread is initialized, all signals are set to be ignored by default. DRBD uses SIGHUP to end its threads, which means it is now no longer possible to bring down a DRBD resourc