On Thu, 2021-06-10 at 09:26 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Olivier Langlois <olivier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 16:05 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > > > > So the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL does get set WHILE the core dump is > > > > written. > > > > > > Did you mean? > > > > > > So the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL does _not_ get set WHILE the core dump > > > is > > > written. > > > > > > > > Absolutely not. I did really mean what I have said. Bear with me > > that, > > I am not qualifying myself as an expert kernel dev yet so feel free > > to > > correct me if I say some heresy... > > No. I was just asking to make certain I understood what you said. > > I thought you said you were getting a consistent 0 byte coredump, > and that implied that TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL was coming in before > the coredump even started. due to the asynchronous nature of the problem, it is all random. Sometimes, I do get 0 byte coredump. Most of the times, I get a truncated one and very rarely (this is why the issue was so annoying), I get a full coredump. > > So I will spin up a good version of my patch (based on your patch) > so we can unbreak coredumps. > That is super nice. I am looking forward it! Greetings, Olivier
