From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757923Ab1DZUhs (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:37:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24133 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754900Ab1DZUhr (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:37:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:36:44 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Chris Metcalf Cc: Matt Fleming , Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Matt Fleming Subject: [PATCH 0/1] tile: do_hardwall_trap: do not play with task->sighand Message-ID: <20110426203644.GA10177@redhat.com> References: <1302031310-1765-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <1302031310-1765-3-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <20110413194231.GA15330@redhat.com> <20110414113456.5182a582@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> <20110414190012.GA23517@redhat.com> <20110416140813.5c90b1fc@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> <20110418164513.GA25930@redhat.com> <20110421190332.GA2570@redhat.com> <4DB17CDE.3050603@tilera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB17CDE.3050603@tilera.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/22, Chris Metcalf wrote: > > On 4/21/2011 9:03 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Hmm. It turns out, I can't make the patch because I do not understand > > what this code tries to do. > > > > hardwall_activate() adds the thread to hardwall_list, but do_hardwall_trap() > > sends the signal to the whole process. I know nothing about arch/tile and > > probably this is correct, but could you confirm this? > > Yes, the intended behavior is to send the signal to the process, as a way > of indicating the OS's displeasure with sending a malformed packet on the > user network. But I think sending it to the specific thread is reasonable > too; I don't have a strong preference in this design. > > > Note that SIGILL can be delivered to another thread in the thread-group, is > > it correct? > > > > Also. Is it supposed that SIGILL can have a hanlder or can be blocked, or > > it should always kill the whole thread group? > > A handler would be reasonable for the process. OK. In this case the thread-specific SIGILL makes more sense afaics. > > I think we need the patch below, assuming that SIGILL should be sent to > > the single thread and it is fine to have a handler for SIGILL. > > Thanks; I appreciate the additional code review in any case. I'll look at > the ramifications of the change in more detail when I return from vacation > late next week. Great. I am sending the same patch + the changelog. Please do not forget, I know _nothing_ about arch/tile, and of course the patch was not tested. Oleg.