> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I am wondering, can't we set FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE unconditionally
> > but check PF_USER when we get VM_FAULT_RETRY? I mean,
> >
> > if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> > if (!(error_code & PF_USER))
> > no_context(...);
> > return;
> > }
>
> I agree, we should do this.
>
> > Probably not... but I can't find any example of in-kernel fault which
> > can be broken by -EFAULT if current was killed.
>
> There's no way that can validly break anything, since any such
> codepath has to be able to handle -EFAULT for other reasons anyway.
>
> The only issue is whether we're ok with a regular write() system call
> (for example) not being atomic in the presence of a fatal signal. So
> it does change semantics, but I think it changes it in a good way
> (technically POSIX requires atomicity, but on the other hand,
> technically POSIX also doesn't talk about the process being killed,
> and writes would still be atomic for the case where they actually
> return. Not to mention NFS etc where writes have never been atomic
> anyway, so a program that relies on strict "all or nothing" write
> behavior is fundamentally broken to begin with).
Ok, I didn't have enough brave. Will do.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href