On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig,
> > bool force)
> > if (!sig_task_ignored(t, sig, force))
> > return
On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig,
> bool force)
> if (!sig_task_ignored(t, sig, force))
> return 0;
>
> + /* Do not ignore signals sent from child to
Sorry for delay, I was offline. I'll try to return to this problem next
week, currently I can't even read this thread but at first glance the
proposed patch(es) do not look right...
On 09/21, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> The further investigation shown that the tracer (strace) is stuck
> waiting for
On Fri 23-09-16 11:50:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Sorry for delay, I was offline. I'll try to return to this problem next
> week, currently I can't even read this thread but at first glance the
> proposed patch(es) do not look right...
>
> On 09/21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > The further
On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct task_struct *t, int sig,
> > > bool force)
> > > if
On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 23-09-16 12:21:41, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 09/22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > > > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static int sig_ignored(struct
On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > This change is simply wrong no matter what.
>
> I've just tried to extend the existing
>
> /*
>* Tracers may want to know about even ignored signals.
>*/
> return !t->ptrace;
>
>
On Fri 23-09-16 16:07:24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 23-09-16 15:21:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > This change is simply wrong no matter what.
> >
> > I've just tried to extend the existing
> >
> > /*
> > * Tracers may want to know about even
