Am 25.03.21 um 12:24 schrieb Sasha Levin: > From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> > > [ Upstream commit 5be28c8f85ce99ed2d329d2ad8bdd18ea19473a5 ] > > They don't take signals individually, and even if they share signals with > the parent task, don't allow them to be delivered through the worker > thread. Linux does allow this kind of behavior for regular threads, but > it's really a compatability thing that we need not care about for the IO > threads. > > Reported-by: Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/signal.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c > index 5ad8566534e7..55526b941011 100644 > --- a/kernel/signal.c > +++ b/kernel/signal.c > @@ -833,6 +833,9 @@ static int check_kill_permission(int sig, struct > kernel_siginfo *info, > > if (!valid_signal(sig)) > return -EINVAL; > + /* PF_IO_WORKER threads don't take any signals */ > + if (t->flags & PF_IO_WORKER) > + return -ESRCH;
Why is that proposed for 5.11 and 5.10 now? Are the create_io_thread() patches already backported? I think we should hold on with the backports until everything is stable in v5.12 final. I'm still about to test on top of v5.12-rc4 and have a pending mail why I think this particular change is wrong even in 5.12. Jens, did you send these to stable? metze
