On 06/20, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Also, suppose that some thread does
> >
> > for (;;)
> > signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN);
> >
> > Now we have the same situation. do_sigaction() can steal SIGSEGV from
> > another thread.
>
> Actually, that shouldn't be possible.
>
> See "force_sig_info()". It does not allow blocking or ignoring forced
> signals. We will reset such a signal handler to SIG_DFL, and unlock it.
>
> So if you get a SIGSEGV while SIGSEGV's are blocked or ignored, the kernel
> *will* kill you. No questions asked.
Yes, and no.
Yes, force_sig() unblocks and un-ignores the signal. However, unlike group-wide
signals, thread-specific signals do not convert themselves to SIGKILL on delivery.
The target thread should dequeue SIGSEGV and then it calls do_group_exit().
Before it does so, another thread doing signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_IGN) can steal
the signal.
Of course, this is unlikely, and the target thread will take page fault again.
The same for signalfd.
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]
