| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707141151500.31255@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net> cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: signalfd() semantics after execve() On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Davide, > > I'm working on the signalfd(2) man page, and I've come > acorss some puzzling behaviour... > > What are the intended semantics of a signalfd file descriptor > after an execve()? > > As far as I can work out, after an execve() the file descriptor > is still available, but reads from it always return 0, even if: > > a) there were signals pending before the execve(). > However, sigpending() shows the signal as pending, > and the signal can be accepted using sigwaitinfo(). > > b) we generate a signal after the execve(). > > Is this intended behavior (the "orphaned sighand" condition > mentioned in the draft man page you sent me?)? Is it a bug? It is the intended behaviour. Just like reading from a socket where the remote peer disconnected. A return 0 from a read from a signalfd should be interpreted as the "virtual connection" with the signal source has been dropped. - 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