Hacker News Reader

Should processes not be able to wait after exit_signals? That seems like a plausible invariant.

I think they definitely should not. I've considered sending a patch that adds a WARN() or some syzkaller test for it or something, especially now that I've seen it in other filesystems.

Makes sense to me.

I think that’s the point. Currently doing that will potentially result in a deadlock.

Well, only if the wait is for userspace or a remote resource, right? Regular disks are sometimes considered infallible (or at least, the IO will timeout eventually in the generic SCSI logic) and might be ok to wait on.

To generalize a bit, I think the problem is doing any sort of interruptible wait -- because we can no longer be interrupted. Uninterruptible waits aren't any different without signal delivery. I might be oversimplifying, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com