Re: [patch 7/7] tidy up usermode helper waiting a bit

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Johannes Berg wrote:
> [/me wonders why he was CC'ed]
>   

Because I knew you'd ask a good question ;)  No, I looked through the
recent changes on the files I changes and guessed at likely-looking
names.  But come to think of it, cc:ing completely random people is not
a bad way of getting some extra review cycles you mightn't otherwise get...


>>  	/* CLONE_VFORK: wait until the usermode helper has execve'd
>>  	 * successfully We need the data structures to stay around
>>  	 * until that is done.  */
>> -	if (wait)
>> +	if (wait == UMH_WAIT_PROC)
>>  		pid = kernel_thread(wait_for_helper, sub_info,
>>  				    CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | SIGCHLD);
>>  	else
>>  		pid = kernel_thread(____call_usermodehelper, sub_info,
>>  				    CLONE_VFORK | SIGCHLD);
>>     
>
> Isn't that a change in behaviour? Previously it said
> 	if (wait)
>  <=>	if (wait != 0)
>  <=>	if (wait != UMH_WAIT_EXEC)
> or am I missing something?
>   

Hm, you're right, it is a change in behaviour.  Yep, and a bug, since
its expecting wait_for_helper() to free the info in the UMH_NO_WAIT case.

---
 kernel/kmod.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

===================================================================
--- a/kernel/kmod.c
+++ b/kernel/kmod.c
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static void __call_usermodehelper(struct
 	/* CLONE_VFORK: wait until the usermode helper has execve'd
 	 * successfully We need the data structures to stay around
 	 * until that is done.  */
-	if (wait == UMH_WAIT_PROC)
+	if (wait == UMH_WAIT_PROC || wait == UMH_NO_WAIT)
 		pid = kernel_thread(wait_for_helper, sub_info,
 				    CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES | SIGCHLD);
 	else

Thanks,
    J