From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Was: pidns : PR_SET_PDEATHSIG + SIGKILL regression Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:18:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20091004021844.GA21006@redhat.com> References: <4AC608BE.9020805@fr.ibm.com> <20091003171029.GA30442@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091003171029.GA30442-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Andrew Morton , Sukadev Bhattiprolu Cc: Linux Containers , Daniel Lezcano , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, roland-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On 10/03, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > static void reparent_thread(struct task_struct *father, struct task_struct *p, > struct list_head *dead) > { > - if (p->pdeath_signal) > - group_send_sig_info(p->pdeath_signal, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, p); > + if (p->pdeath_signal) { > + struct siginfo info; > + > + info.si_code = SI_USER; > + info.si_signo = p->pdeath_signal; > + info.si_errno = 0; > + > + rcu_read_lock(); > + info.si_pid = task_tgid_nr_ns(father, task_active_pid_ns(p)); > + info.si_uid = __task_cred(father)->uid; > + rcu_read_unlock(); > + > + group_send_sig_info(p->pdeath_signal, &info, p); > + } I think the patch is correct. But afaics we should clarify the "from user" semantics and fix send_signal() instead. What do you think about this simple series? (the last 2 patches are pure cosmetic and off-topic). Oleg.