On 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the target thread is the one that caused the SIGSEGV, it sends the signal
> > to itself. entry.S:ret_from_exception should notice this signal and _dequeue_
> > it, no? This signal could be stealed by signal(SIG_IGN) which runs after it
> > was delivered.
>
> Right. But it will dequeue it by *taking* it.
>
> IOW, this has absolutely nothing to do with signalfd.
>
> That's all I mean.
Yes.
> > My point was that it is _possible_ to steal a thread-local SIGSEGV even without
> > signalfd, nothing bad should happen.
>
> That makes no sense.
>
> You don't "steal" it. You take it. It's what SIGSEGV (and _any_ signal)
> has always been about. You get the signal, enter the signal handler, and
> handle it.
>
> No "stealing". No signalfd, no *nothing*. Just normal signal behaviour.
_Another_ thread could steal SIGSEGV via read(signalfd) without Ben's patch.
This is what Ben and Davide are worried about. I think we should not worry,
we have the same situation if this "another" thread does
for (;;)
signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN);
do_sigaction() does rm_from_queue_full().
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
