On 12/02, Simon Holm Th?gersen wrote:
>
> s??n, 02 12 2007 kl. 18:14 +0300, skrev Oleg Nesterov:
> >
> > Please comment, I think at least the idea is promising.
> >
> I have an issue that sounds related, but I might be completely off. I
> would expect the simple attached program to keep receiving the same
> signal, i.e. respond to
> killall signal-exec -s SIGHUP
>
> I tried your patches, but they didn't help.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
> Simon Holm Th??gersen
> #include <signal.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> static char **argv_;
>
> static void handler(int signal)
> {
> printf("got signal %d\n", signal);
> execv(argv_[0], argv_);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> printf("spawned\n");
> argv_ = argv;
> if (signal(SIGTERM, handler) == SIG_ERR)
> err(1, "could not set signal handler for SIGTERM");
> if (signal(SIGHUP, handler) == SIG_ERR)
> err(1, "could not set signal handler for SIGTERM");
> sleep(60);
> return 0;
> }
>
I think this is another issue which should be solved (?).
exec() from the signal handler doesn't do sys_sigreturn(), so we don't unblock
the signal, and it remains blocked after exec().
Hmm. Is this linux bug, or application bug?
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]
