On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> > I have a driver that spawns a kernel thread (using kthread_create) which 
> > does I/O by calling vfs_write and vfs_read.  It relies on signals to 
> > interrupt the I/O activity when necessary.  Maybe this isn't a good way of 
> > doing things, but I couldn't think of anything better.
> 
> Given that we have no other way to interrupt I/O then signals at those
> lower level I don't see a way around the singals if you stick to that
> higher level design.

Okay.

> > P.S.: What is the reason for saying "signals should be avoided in kernel
> > threads at all cost"?
> 
> The probem with signals is that they can come from various sources, most
> notably from random kill commands issues from userland.  This defeats
> the notion of a fixed thread lifetime under control of the owning module.
> Of course this issue doesn't exist for you above useage where you'd
> hopefully avoid allowing signals that could terminate the thread.

In my case the situation is exactly the reverse: I _want_ to allow signals
to terminate the thread (as well as allowing signals to interrupt I/O).

The reason is simple enough.  At system shutdown, if the thread isn't
terminated then it would continue to own an open file, preventing that
file's filesystem from being unmounted cleanly.  Since people should be
able to unmount their disks during shutdown without having to unload
drivers first, the simplest solution is to allow the thread to respond to
the TERM signal normally sent by the shutdown scripts.

Since the thread is owned by the kernel, random kill commands won't have 
any bad effect.  Only kill commands sent by the superuser can terminate 
the thread.

Alan Stern

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers