Subject : LTP 20080131 causes defunct processes w/2.6.30-rc1 (possible ptrace issue?) Submitter : Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> Date : 2009-04-09 15:43 References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123929187208953&w=4 Handled-By : Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.29. Please don't close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline. Caused by: commit b3bfa0cba867f23365b81658b47efd906830879b Author: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu Apr 2 16:58:08 2009 -0700 signals: protect cinit from blocked fatal signals Signed-off-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@free.fr> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> First-Bad-Commit : b3bfa0cba867f23365b81658b47efd906830879b
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/10/193
Notify-Also : Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/17/149
Linus - "People convinced me it wasn't really a regression. LTP has already been changed, and there are people out there who actually want to stop init for debugging etc."
On Friday 22 May 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 16 May 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13107 > > Subject : LTP 20080131 causes defunct processes w/2.6.30-rc1 > > Submitter : Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> > > Date : 2009-04-09 15:43 (38 days old) > > Handled-By : Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > This one seems to have become "not-a-bug". Yes, LTP used to check that you > cannot send SIGSTP to init, but people do want to send signals to init > (especially when they are inside pid-namespace containers), and as long as > it's only a LTP test that already got modified (and not some actual > real-life usage), I'm considering this a "test failed because it was > testing for behavior that we want to change" at least for now.