From 13aa9a6b0f2371d2ce0de57c2ede62ab7a787157 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oleg Nesterov Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:23:09 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] pid_ns: zap_pid_ns_processes: use SEND_SIG_NOINFO instead of force_sig() zap_pid_ns_processes() uses force_sig(SIGKILL) to ensure SIGKILL will be delivered to sub-namespace inits as well. This is correct, but we are going to change force_sig_info() semantics. See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15395#c31 We can use send_sig_info(SEND_SIG_NOINFO) instead, since 614c517d7c00af1b26ded20646b329397d6f51a1 ("signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as SI_FROMUSER()") SEND_SIG_NOINFO means "from user" and therefore send_signal() will get the correct from_ancestor_ns = T flag. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Acked-by: Serge Hallyn Acked-by: Linus Torvalds Acked-by: Roland McGrath Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- kernel/pid_namespace.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/pid_namespace.c b/kernel/pid_namespace.c index 86b3796b0436..79aac93acf99 100644 --- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c +++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c @@ -161,13 +161,12 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns) rcu_read_lock(); /* - * Use force_sig() since it clears SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE ensuring - * any nested-container's init processes don't ignore the - * signal + * Any nested-container's init processes won't ignore the + * SEND_SIG_NOINFO signal, see send_signal()->si_fromuser(). */ task = pid_task(find_vpid(nr), PIDTYPE_PID); if (task) - force_sig(SIGKILL, task); + send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, task); rcu_read_unlock(); -- 2.20.1