Re: [patch] inherited events not signalling parent on overflow

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:42:06AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > Right, I had a peek earlier at how fasync worked but came away confused.
> > 
> > Today I seem to have had better luck. Installing fasync allocates memory
> > and sets filp->f_flags |= FASYNC, which upon the demise of the file
> > descriptor ensures the allocation is freed.
> > 
> > Now for perf, we can have the events stick around for a while after the
> > original FD is dead because of references from child events. With the
> > above patch these events would still have a pointer into this free'd
> > fasync. This is bad.
> > 
> > A further problem with the patch is that if the parent changes its
> > fasync state the children might lag and again have pointers into dead
> > space.
> > 
> > All is not lost though; does something like the below work?
> 
> I had meant to reply to this earlier but maybe I forgot.
> 
> I've been running with this patch for a month now and haven't had 
> problems, and it fixes the issue of inherited signals.  So it no one else 
> has issues with the patch it would be nice if it could be pushed upstream.

Great, thanks for testing. I'll go queue it.