[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060801144403.GA1291@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:44:03 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:54:47PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> > This patch (b0423a0d9cc836b2c3d796623cd19236bfedfe63)
> >
> > [PATCH] Remove duplicate code in signal.c
> >
> > reverts a patch introduced by Linus long time back.
>
> Good catch.
>
> > Was this intentional?
> >
> > With the current mainline code, SIGSEGV inside a SIGSEGV handler will endup
> > in linux handling endless recursive faults.
> >
> > Just wondering if this has been discussed before and is intentional.
>
> It certainly wasn't discussed, and I don't think it was intentional. We
> should _not_ just unblock a blocked signal. We should kill the process,
> because sending the signal is actually very very wrong.
>
> Paul? Should I just revert, or did you have some deeper reason for it?
I cannot claim any deep thought on this one, so please do revert it.
Next time I submit a patch to code with which I am not intimately
familiar, I clearly need to carefully review the earlier patches. :-/
Thanx, 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