> * Steven Rostedt ([email protected]) 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.
Yes.
> 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.
It's amazing that this non-conformance was never spotted before.
It seems to go all the way back to kernel 1.0 (when the flag
was known as SA_NOMASK).
I'll get something into the manual pages under BUGS.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest
tarball at ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/manpages/
and grep the source files for 'FIXME'.
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |