Re: [PATCH] signal: Restore the stop PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT

2019-02-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov writes: > sorry for noise, but after I read the changelog I have a minor nit, > feel free to ignore... > > On 02/12, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Skipping past dequeue_signal when we know a fatal signal has already >> been delivered resulted in SIGKILL remaining pending and >> TIF

Re: [PATCH] signal: Restore the stop PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT

2019-02-13 Thread Oleg Nesterov
sorry for noise, but after I read the changelog I have a minor nit, feel free to ignore... On 02/12, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Skipping past dequeue_signal when we know a fatal signal has already > been delivered resulted in SIGKILL remaining pending and > TIF_SIGPENDING remaining set. This in

Re: [PATCH] signal: Restore the stop PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT

2019-02-13 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 02/12, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg this looks like the most conservative regression fix I can manage. This is what I tried to suggest. Except I still think that __fatal_signal_pending() would look better. Yes, yes, in the long term we can possibly even kill fatal_signal_pending() by var