On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 18:06 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:14 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > The commited "Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals"
> > > (commit caec4e8dc85e0644ec24aeb36285e1ba02da58cc) doesn't implement
> > > this.
> >
> > Indeed, if you want what Davide described, you need to also change
> > signalfd side. The patch I did merely prevents another thread from
> > dequeuing somebody else private signals.
>
> Yes I see, but why do we need this change? Yes, we can dequeue SIGSEGV
> from another thread. Just don't do it if you have a handler for SIGSEGV?
Well, for such synchronous signals, it's a fairly stupid idea,
especially since you can't predict who will get it. Signals such as SEGV
are forced-in, which means they are force-unblocked. Thus, you can't
know for sure whome of signalfd or the target thread will get it first,
depending on who catches the siglock first I suppose. In one case,
you'll manage to steal it, in the other, you'll thread will be killed.
Ben.
-
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]
