From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BABDC282CB for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 03:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206F8218A3 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 03:10:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arista.com header.i=@arista.com header.b="eni2uIBU" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727460AbfBFDKa (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 22:10:30 -0500 Received: from mx.aristanetworks.com ([162.210.129.12]:20453 "EHLO prod-mx.aristanetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725981AbfBFDKa (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 22:10:30 -0500 Received: from prod-mx.aristanetworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mx.aristanetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE91E05; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 19:10:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=Arista-A; t=1549422629; bh=bGGPhGmbcYhx+29tLhYNeqoBW22IGCZWaAvPb0f9SBo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=eni2uIBUkQSWwV/ApwpUrgfns8VSmUxX60QikkMZ1X6038EwOda9NKQi+99/yyEdm DzzBPvSo1ONaz5wV9fg7QNIv3mf8CGS354qNsaV6zYOOzSQRe6xHyujTog9wSPDhIh AZELdTf+7Ie2zql6+7YRwcTt6xrRSS8EIlTxn3TxCScSlGnHmEFKvathT+VGUJiGMx sPBBWqYqCpsBzA3ErjcAt2gZxMETW8aaKB16wx4zXinxUJnqsy7bx/64FqFnn0mY4H /zmw4Raz1hpsHWePBZAkb6p43W95Ponxt/C8VVPNXYaHPQaRrUUkW56H0Q09y2sdlN Axpwa/oOsYMMw== Received: from visor (unknown [172.20.208.17]) by prod-mx.aristanetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8E0E01; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 19:10:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 19:10:29 -0800 From: Ivan Delalande To: Andrew Morton Cc: Al Viro , Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exec: don't force_sigsegv processes with a pending fatal signal Message-ID: <20190206031029.GB9368@visor> References: <20190205025308.GA24455@visor> <20190205131119.3e388a0a1a69c0a041ed87ef@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190205131119.3e388a0a1a69c0a041ed87ef@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:11:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:53:08 -0800 Ivan Delalande 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