Am 25.03.21 um 12:24 schrieb Sasha Levin: > From: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]> > > [ Upstream commit 4db4b1a0d1779dc159f7b87feb97030ec0b12597 ] > > Just like we don't allow normal signals to IO threads, don't deliver a > STOP to a task that has PF_IO_WORKER set. The IO threads don't take > signals in general, and have no means of flushing out a stop either. > > Longer term, we may want to look into allowing stop of these threads, > as it relates to eg process freezing. For now, this prevents a spin > issue if a SIGSTOP is delivered to the parent task. > > Reported-by: Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/signal.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c > index 55526b941011..00a3840f6037 100644 > --- a/kernel/signal.c > +++ b/kernel/signal.c > @@ -288,7 +288,8 @@ bool task_set_jobctl_pending(struct task_struct *task, > unsigned long mask) > JOBCTL_STOP_SIGMASK | JOBCTL_TRAPPING)); > BUG_ON((mask & JOBCTL_TRAPPING) && !(mask & JOBCTL_PENDING_MASK)); > > - if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(task) || (task->flags & PF_EXITING))) > + if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(task) || > + (task->flags & (PF_EXITING | PF_IO_WORKER)))) > return false; > > if (mask & JOBCTL_STOP_SIGMASK) >
Again, why is this proposed for 5.11 and 5.10 already? metze
