On 09/30, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
> @@ -423,7 +424,9 @@ static int coredump_wait(int exit_code, struct core_state *core_state)
> if (core_waiters > 0) {
> struct core_thread *ptr;
>
> + freezer_do_not_count();
> wait_for_completion(&core_state->startup);
> + freezer_count();
Agreed... we could probably even do
--- x/fs/coredump.c
+++ x/fs/coredump.c
@@ -423,7 +423,13 @@ static int coredump_wait(int exit_code,
if (core_waiters > 0) {
struct core_thread *ptr;
- wait_for_completion(&core_state->startup);
+ if (wait_for_completion_interruptible(&core_state->startup)) {
+ /* see the comment in dump_interrupted() */
+ down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
+ coredump_finish(mm, false);
+ up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
+ return -EINTR;
+ }
/*
* Wait for all the threads to become inactive, so that
* all the thread context (extended register state, like
but this change looks fine to me too.
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
