On 02/28, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> +void pidfs_exit(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + struct dentry *dentry;
> +
> + dentry = stashed_dentry_get(&task_pid(tsk)->stashed);
> + if (dentry) {
> + struct inode *inode;
> + struct pidfs_exit_info *exit_info;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
> + struct cgroup *cgrp;
> +#endif
> + inode = d_inode(dentry);
> + exit_info = &pidfs_i(inode)->exit_info;
> +
> + /* TODO: Annoy Oleg to tell me how to do this correctly. */
> + if (tsk->signal->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT)
> + exit_info->exit_code = tsk->signal->group_exit_code;
> + else
> + exit_info->exit_code = tsk->exit_code;
I think you don't need to check SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT,
exit_info->exit_code = tsk->exit_code;
should be fine.
Yes, if SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is already set then signal->group_exit_code
can differ.
But this can only happen if the "current" thread exits on its own using
sys_exit() and it races with another thread which does sys_exit_group()
and sets SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT.
In this case pidfs_exit() can miss SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT anyway, but we don't
care. This doesn't differ from the case when current exits, and then
another thread does sys_exit_group() or exec().
Just in case... If current exits because it was killed by sys_exit_group()
from another thread, current->exit_code will be correct, it will be equal
to signal->group_exit_code.
But I am not sure I understand the next patch. let me check...
Oleg.
