On 04/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > --- a/kernel/fork.c > +++ b/kernel/fork.c > @@ -1515,6 +1515,13 @@ static __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process( > if ((clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) && !(clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND)) > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > + /* Disallow CLONE_THREAD with a shared SIGHAND structure. No > + * one cares Well, can't resists... I won't argue, but we can't know if no one cares or not. I agree that most probably this won't break something, but who knows... I am always scared when we add the incompatible changes. > and supporting it leads to unnecessarily complex > + * code. > + */ > + if ((clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) && (atomic_read(¤t->sighand->count) > 1)) > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); Perhaps the comment should explain why we do this and say that sighand-unsharing in de_thread() depends on this. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html