[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071202171805.GA14701@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:18:05 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Simon Holm Th?gersen <odie@...aau.dk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix the long standing exec vs kill race
On 12/02, Simon Holm Th?gersen wrote:
>
> s??n, 02 12 2007 kl. 18:14 +0300, skrev Oleg Nesterov:
> >
> > Please comment, I think at least the idea is promising.
> >
> I have an issue that sounds related, but I might be completely off. I
> would expect the simple attached program to keep receiving the same
> signal, i.e. respond to
> killall signal-exec -s SIGHUP
>
> I tried your patches, but they didn't help.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
> Simon Holm Th??gersen
> #include <signal.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> static char **argv_;
>
> static void handler(int signal)
> {
> printf("got signal %d\n", signal);
> execv(argv_[0], argv_);
> }
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> printf("spawned\n");
> argv_ = argv;
> if (signal(SIGTERM, handler) == SIG_ERR)
> err(1, "could not set signal handler for SIGTERM");
> if (signal(SIGHUP, handler) == SIG_ERR)
> err(1, "could not set signal handler for SIGTERM");
> sleep(60);
> return 0;
> }
>
I think this is another issue which should be solved (?).
exec() from the signal handler doesn't do sys_sigreturn(), so we don't unblock
the signal, and it remains blocked after exec().
Hmm. Is this linux bug, or application bug?
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