| 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: <20071114155300.GA12407@tv-sign.ru> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:53:00 +0300 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sigwait eats blocked default-ignore signals On 11/13, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > But I suspect we have other issues here. Let's suppose we have threads T1 > > (main) and T2. T2 blocks SIGCHLD and does sigwait(SIGCHLD). > > > > Now, we send SIGCHLD to the thread group. The signal is lost again because > > sig_ignored() returns true on T1's side. > > > > Is this OK? [...] > > Yes, it's OK if T1 has SIGCHLD unblocked. When there are multiple threads > that either don't block the signal or are in sigwait for it, then it can go > to any of them and there are no guarantees at all about which. So we > simply say that the signal went to the thread not in sigwait that has that > signal unblocked (T1). When it got there, it was ignored. The user > semantics are equivalent even if that thread never actually woke and > dequeued the signal to ignore it. Yes. I misunderstood the required semantics for sigwait(), thanks Roland. 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