Re: [PATCH v2] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal

[Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com>]

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:11:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:53:08 -0800 Ivan Delalande <colona@arista.com> wrote:
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -1660,7 +1660,12 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> >  		if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) {
> >  			/* we got to flush_old_exec() and failed after it */
> >  			read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
> > -			force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> > +			if (!fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> > +				if (print_fatal_signals)
> > +					pr_info("load_binary() failed: %d\n",
> > +						retval);
> 
> Should we be using print_fatal_signal() here?

I don't think so, the force_sigsegv() already ensures it will be called
from get_signal() when the signal is handled, and so the process
information will be printed then.

> > +				force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV, current);
> > +			}
> >  			return retval;
> >  		}
> >  		if (retval != -ENOEXEC || !bprm->file) {


Thanks,

-- 
Ivan Delalande
Arista Networks