[RFC PATCH 2/3] exec: don't wait for zombie threads with cred_guard_mutex held

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 04:09:05PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
...
> > > 	if (!((sig->flags & SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT) || sig->group_exec_task)) {
> > > 		sig->group_exec_task = tsk;
> > > 		sig->notify_count = -zap_other_threads(tsk);
> >
> > Hi Oleg! I somehow manage to miss a moment -- why negative result here?
> 
> You know, initially I wrote
> 
> 		sig->notify_count = 0 - zap_other_threads(tsk);
> 
> to make it clear that this is not a typo ;)

Aha! Thanks a huge for explanation :)

> 
> This is for exit_notify() which does
> 
> 	/* mt-exec, de_thread() -> wait_for_notify_count() */
> 	if (tsk->signal->notify_count < 0 && !++tsk->signal->notify_count)
> 		wake_up_process(tsk->signal->group_exec_task);
> 
> Then setup_new_exec() sets notify_count > 0 for __exit_signal() which does
> 
> 	/* mt-exec, setup_new_exec() -> wait_for_notify_count() */
> 	if (sig->notify_count > 0 && !--sig->notify_count)
> 		wake_up_process(sig->group_exec_task);
> 
> Yes this needs more comments and (with or without this patch) cleanups.
> Note that exit_notify() and __exit_signal() already (before this patch)
> use ->notify_count almost the same way, just exit_notify() assumes that
> notify_count < 0 means the !thread_group_leader() case in de_thread().

Yeah, just realized. It's been a long time since I looked into this signals
and tasks related code so to be honest don't think I would be helpful here)
Anyway while looking into patch I got wonder why

+static int wait_for_notify_count(struct task_struct *tsk)
+{
+	for (;;) {
+			return -EINTR;
+		set_current_state(TASK_KILLABLE);
+		if (!tsk->signal->notify_count)
+			break;

We have no any barrier here in fetching @notify_count? I mean updating
this value is done under locks (spin or read/write) in turn condition
test is a raw one. Not a big deal since set_current_state() and schedule()
are buffer flushers by themselves and after all not immediate update of
notify_count simply force us to yield one more schedule() call but I've
been a bit confused that we don't use some read_once here or something.
Another (more likely) that I've just said something stupid)

+		schedule();
 	}
+	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+	return 0;
+}

	Cyrill