On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:42:06AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Right, I had a peek earlier at how fasync worked but came away confused. > > > > Today I seem to have had better luck. Installing fasync allocates memory > > and sets filp->f_flags |= FASYNC, which upon the demise of the file > > descriptor ensures the allocation is freed. > > > > Now for perf, we can have the events stick around for a while after the > > original FD is dead because of references from child events. With the > > above patch these events would still have a pointer into this free'd > > fasync. This is bad. > > > > A further problem with the patch is that if the parent changes its > > fasync state the children might lag and again have pointers into dead > > space. > > > > All is not lost though; does something like the below work? > > I had meant to reply to this earlier but maybe I forgot. > > I've been running with this patch for a month now and haven't had > problems, and it fixes the issue of inherited signals. So it no one else > has issues with the patch it would be nice if it could be pushed upstream.
Great, thanks for testing. I'll go queue it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
