|Summary:||LTP 20080131 causes defunct processes w/2.6.30-rc1|
|Product:||Process Management||Reporter:||Rafael J. Wysocki (rjw)|
|Bug Depends on:|
Description Rafael J. Wysocki 2009-04-16 21:27:48 UTC
Subject : LTP 20080131 causes defunct processes w/2.6.30-rc1 (possible ptrace issue?) Submitter : Kumar Gala <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date : 2009-04-09 15:43 References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123929187208953&w=4 Handled-By : Sukadev Bhattiprolu <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu Apr 2 16:58:08 2009 -0700 signals: protect cinit from blocked fatal signals Signed-off-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <email@example.com> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Roland McGrath <email@example.com> Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <email@example.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <email@example.com> First-Bad-Commit : b3bfa0cba867f23365b81658b47efd906830879b
Comment 4 Alan 2009-05-21 20:49:42 UTC
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."
Comment 5 Rafael J. Wysocki 2009-05-23 00:06:07 UTC
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > Date : 2009-04-09 15:43 (38 days old) > > Handled-By : Sukadev Bhattiprolu <email@example.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.