On 03/22, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
> On 03/22/2012 03:16 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> > I think you should use a fork()ed wrapper in userspace for implementing
> > timeout.
>
> I did that actually. But I would like not to be dependent on it. I would like
> the Kernel to be independent and simple timeout and recover,
Tetsuo, Boaz, since I do not understand the problem space, I am not
going to discuss the "do we need the timeout" thing.
But, just in case, perhaps there is no need to change kmod.c ? I do
not know if it works for you, but you can simply do something like
struct kill_work {
struct delayed_work work;
struct pid *pid;
};
void kill_work_func(struct work_struct *_work)
{
struct kill_work *work = container_of(_work, struct kill_work, work);
kill_pid(work->pid, SIGKILL);
put_pid(work->pid);
kfree(work);
}
int unh_setup_timeout(struct subprocess_info *info, struct cred *new)
{
struct kill_work *work = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kill_work));
if (!work)
return -ENOMEM;
INIT_WORK(&work->work, kill_work_func);
work->pid = get_pid(task_pid(current));
schedule_delayed_work(&work->work, (long)info->data);
return 0;
}
Now you can do
call_usermodehelper_fns(init => unh_setup_timeout,
data => (void*)timeout);
Oleg.
--
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
