On 03/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 03/26, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >
> > int call_usermodehelper_exec(struct subprocess_info *sub_info, int wait)
> > {
> > DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(done);
> > + int wait_state;
> > int retval = 0;
> >
> > helper_lock();
> > @@ -540,19 +541,15 @@ int call_usermodehelper_exec(struct subprocess_info *sub_info, int wait)
> > if (wait == UMH_NO_WAIT) /* task has freed sub_info */
> > goto unlock;
> >
> > - if (wait & UMH_KILLABLE) {
> > - retval = wait_for_completion_killable(&done);
> > - if (!retval)
> > - goto wait_done;
> > -
> > + wait_state = (wait & UMH_KILLABLE) ? TASK_KILLABLE : 0;
> > + retval = wait_for_completion_timeout_state(&done, sub_info->timeout,
> > + wait_state);
> > + if (unlikely(retval)) {
> > /* umh_complete() will see NULL and free sub_info */
> > if (xchg(&sub_info->complete, NULL))
> > goto unlock;
> > - /* fallthrough, umh_complete() was already called */
> > }
> >
> > - wait_for_completion(&done);
>
> at first glance this looks certainly wrong, or I misread the patch.
>
> We can't remove the "fallback to wait_for_completion" logic until
> you move the completion into subprocess_info (the next patch seems
> to do this).
Yes, I think this is true after I re-checked the code.
One more nit. With this patch call_usermodehelper_fns() does
info = call_usermodehelper_setup(path, argv, envp, gfp_mask);
call_usermodehelper_setfns(info, init, cleanup, data);
info->timeout = timeout;
We have 2 (static!) helpers to initialize info, yet we initialize
->timeout by hand. Of course I do not blame this patch, but imho
this looks a bit messy and deserves another minor cleanup.
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
