[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070621182340.GA92@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:23:40 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.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 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, force_sig() unblocks and un-ignores the signal. However, unlike group-wide
> > signals, thread-specific signals do not convert themselves to SIGKILL on delivery.
> > The target thread should dequeue SIGSEGV and then it calls do_group_exit().
>
> No it couldn't.
>
> Why? Because the target thread is the one that *caused* the SIGSEGV in the
> first place. It's not going to dequeue *anything*. It's either going to
> take the SIGSEGV,
Hmm, can't understand.
Yes, the target thread is the one that caused the SIGSEGV, it sends the signal
to itself. entry.S:ret_from_exception should notice this signal and _dequeue_
it, no? This signal could be stealed by signal(SIG_IGN) which runs after it
was delivered.
> or it's going to get another SIGSEGV and now it's no
> longer masked/handled and it's going to die.
Yes sure. As I said,
> and the target thread will take page fault again.
My point was that it is _possible_ to steal a thread-local SIGSEGV even without
signalfd, nothing bad should happen.
Oleg.
-
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