Re: Signal handling possibly wrong

[Bodo Stroesser <bstroesser@fujitsu-siemens.com>]

Chris Wright wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
>
> > Where, sa_mask is _ignored_ if NODEFER is set. (I now have woken up!).
> > The attached program shows that the sa_mask is indeed ignored when
> > SA_NODEFER is set.
> >
> > Now the real question is... Is this a bug?
>
>
> That's not correct w.r.t. SUSv3.  sa_mask should be always used and
> SA_NODEFER is just whether or not to add that signal in.
>
> SA_NODEFER
>     [XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the thread's
>     signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in
>     sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal
>     mask on entry to the signal handler.
>
> Brodo, is this what you mean?
>
> thanks,
> -chris
> --
Yes. That's the difference between kernel and man page, that I've found.
I like the patch, at least the version Steven has sent. But at the end,
others have to decide if kernel or man page should be changed.

BTW: would you please call me Bodo? :-)

Regards
	Bodo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/