On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:28:47AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/21, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > - __group_send_sig_info(sig, &info, tsk->parent); > > > + __send_signal(sig, &info, tsk->parent, PIDTYPE_TGID, false); > > > > So below you switch to __send_signal() but set the "force" argument to > > to "false". > > it must be false, the signal is generated from the parent's namespace or > its descendant > > > Before that, if the signal was generated from another pid > > namespace and we fixed up si_pid and si_uid the "force" argument was set > > to "true", > > before that the "force" argument could be falsely true by the same reason, > task_pid_nr_ns(tsk, tsk->parent) can return 0 because "tsk" no longer have > pids after __unhash_process(). As I said in my mail, looking at the codepath it seems safe. My question was whether it is _always_ incorrectly false which I do think it is because child subreapers can't come from outside the pid namespace. If they could you could create a scenario where the signal is generated from a sibling pid namespace in which case it would be correctly set to true. Christian _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
