[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706191606190.16740@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Well, I think the kernel doesn't make any assumptions on that. It can't
> guarantee the signal will be actually dequeued, to begin with.
>
> (That said, I probably missed something, in that case I'd like to be
> educated. This is the real reason why I am making the noise :)
What happens if a task gets a page fault that results in a SIGSEGV, and
another task steals the SIGSEGV using a signalfd, before the faulted task
has the chance to get into do_notify_resume() and notice it? ;)
- 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