...of course I meant t-> and not current->
On 5/1/15, Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "flush_signals()" is only for kernel threads, where it's a hacky
>> alternative to actually handling them (since kernel threads never
>> rreturn to user space and cannot really "handle" a signal). But you're
>> doing it in the ->remove handler for the device, which can be called
>> by arbitrary system processes. This is not a kernel thread thing, as
>> far as I can see.
>>
>> If you cannot handle signals, you damn well shouldn't be using
>> "wait_event_interruptible_timeout()" to begin with. Get rid of the
>> "interruptible", since it apparently *isn't* interruptible.
>>
>> So I'm not pulling this.
>>
>> Now I'm worried that other drivers do insane things like this. I
>> wonder if we should add some sanity test to flush_signals() to make
>> sure that it can only ever get called from a kernel thread.
>
> Hmm, a quick grep exposes some questionable users.
> At least w1 looks fishy.
> drivers/w1/w1_family.c:w1_unregister_family
> drivers/w1/w1_int.c:__w1_remove_master_device
>
> What do you think about a WARN_ON like:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index d51c5dd..b4079c3 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -427,6 +427,8 @@ void flush_signals(struct task_struct *t)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + WARN_ON((current->flags & PF_KTHREAD) == 0);
> +
> spin_lock_irqsave(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> __flush_signals(t);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
>
> --
> Thanks,
> //richard
>
--
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
