[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:43:42 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: signalfd API issues (was Re: [PATCH/RFC] signal races/bugs, losing TIF_SIGPENDING and other woes)
Jeff Dike writes:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:50:04PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Yeah, synchronous signals should probably never be delivered to another
> > process, even via signalfd. There's no point delivering a SEGV to
> > somebody else :-)
>
> Sure there is. UML does exactly that - intercepting child signals
> (including SEGV) with wait.
What Ben was talking about was stealing a synchronous SEGV from a task
without stopping it, and as Ben says that makes no sense.
Intercepting a signal and stopping the task is reasonable, and that is
what ptrace does, and I assume also UML.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists