[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 21:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: signalfd API issues (was Re: [PATCH/RFC] signal races/bugs,
losing TIF_SIGPENDING and other woes)
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, 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 :-)
> >
> > That'd be a limitation. Like you can choose to not handle SEGV, you can
> > choose to have a signalfd listening to it. Of course, not with the
> > intention to *handle* the signal, but with a notification intent.
>
> I agree that it would be a limitation, but it would be a sane one.
>
> How about we try to live with that limitation, if only to avoid the issue
> of having the private signals being stolen by anybody else. If we actually
> find a real-live use-case where that is bad in the future, we can re-visit
> the issue - it's always easier to _expand_ semantics later than it is to
> restrict them, so I think this thread is a good argument for starting it
> out in a more restricted form before people start depending on semantics
> that can be nasty..
Yeah, that's easy. We can exclude them at signalfd creation time.
- Davide
-
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