Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:31:16 +0400 Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On top of Eric's > > kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch > > Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against > signals. > This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-23 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:31:16 +0400 Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On top of Eric's kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against signals. This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only blocks

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > jffs2 actually wants its head examined. W. T. F. does it think it's > doing in there? Good question, especially with respect to SIGHUP. It is on my short list of very annoying kernel threads... NFS and a few kernel threads others currently need a

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:13:32 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On top of Eric's > > > > kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch > > > > Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against > >

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On top of Eric's > > kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch > > Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against > signals. > This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only blocks signal_wake_up(). > Every

[PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On top of Eric's kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against signals. This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only blocks signal_wake_up(). Every "killall -33 kthreadd" means a "struct siginfo" leak.

[PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On top of Eric's kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against signals. This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only blocks signal_wake_up(). Every killall -33 kthreadd means a struct siginfo leak. Change

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On top of Eric's kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against signals. This doesn't prevent the signal delivery, this only blocks signal_wake_up(). Every killall -33

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:13:32 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On top of Eric's kthread-dont-depend-on-work-queues-take-2.patch Currently kernel threads use sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) to protect against signals. This

Re: [PATCH] change kernel threads to ignore signals instead of blocking them

2007-04-13 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jffs2 actually wants its head examined. W. T. F. does it think it's doing in there? Good question, especially with respect to SIGHUP. It is on my short list of very annoying kernel threads... NFS and a few kernel threads others currently need a way to