On 06/24, Bradley Morgan wrote:
>
> Hey you two, sorry to impede in your conversation, but could we write
> your "conflicting" patch over my Patch 2?
>
> It's fine if you don't want to, it kind of kills two birds with one stone.
No, sorry, I don't ;) at least right now. Because I don't really like the
changes it adds into send_signal_locked(). But perhaps I didn't read it
carefully.
Can we return to it later? There is another reason... Currently I am very
busy but I am thinking about another change on top of your 1/2. Something
like below. Not sure it makes a lot of sense though.
Eric, do you think this optimization on top of 1/2 makes sense?
Oleg.
int send_signal_locked(int sig, struct kernel_siginfo *info,
struct task_struct *t, enum pid_type type)
{
/* Should SIGKILL or SIGSTOP be received by a pid namespace init? */
struct kernel_siginfo __info;
bool force = false;
if (info == SEND_SIG_NOINFO) {
/* Force if sent from an ancestor pid namespace */
force = !task_pid_nr_ns(current, task_active_pid_ns(t));
} else if (info == SEND_SIG_PRIV) {
/* Don't ignore kernel generated signals */
force = true;
} else if (has_si_pid_and_uid(info)) {
/* SIGKILL and SIGSTOP is special or has ids */
struct user_namespace *t_user_ns;
#ifdef CONFIG_USER_NS
rcu_read_lock();
t_user_ns = task_cred_xxx(t, user_ns);
if (current_user_ns() != t_user_ns) {
__info = *info;
info = &__info;
kuid_t uid = make_kuid(current_user_ns(), info->si_uid);
info->si_uid = from_kuid_munged(t_user_ns, uid);
}
rcu_read_unlock();
#endif
/* A kernel generated signal? */
force = (info->si_code == SI_KERNEL);
#ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS
/* From an ancestor pid namespace? */
if (!task_pid_nr_ns(current, task_active_pid_ns(t))) {
if (info != &__info) {
__info = *info;
info = &__info;
}
info->si_pid = 0;
force = true;
}
#endif
}
return __send_signal_locked(sig, info, t, type, force);
}
