3.16.76-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit f9070dc94542093fd516ae4ccea17ef46a4362c5 upstream.
The locking in force_sig_info is not prepared to deal with a task that
exits or execs (as sighand may change). The is not a locking problem
in force_sig as force_sig is only built to handle synchronous
exceptions.
Further the function force_sig_info changes the signal state if the
signal is ignored, or blocked or if SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE will prevent the
delivery of the signal. The signal SIGKILL can not be ignored and can
not be blocked and SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE won't prevent it from being
delivered.
So using force_sig rather than send_sig for SIGKILL is confusing
and pointless.
Because it won't impact the sending of the signal and and because
using force_sig is wrong, replace force_sig with send_sig.
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: cf3f89214ef6 ("pidns: add reboot_pid_ns() to handle the reboot syscall")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/pid_namespace.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
+++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
@@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ int reboot_pid_ns(struct pid_namespace *
}
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
- force_sig(SIGKILL, pid_ns->child_reaper);
+ send_sig(SIGKILL, pid_ns->child_reaper, 1);
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
do_exit(0);
