Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:53:44 +0000 | From | Sean Hunter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kill(-1,sig) |
| |
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 12:41:21PM -0200, vda wrote: > On Monday 17 December 2001 07:34, Chris Wright wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com) wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > > > > The new POSIX 1003.1-2001 is explicit about what kill(-1,sig) > > > > is supposed to do. Maybe we should follow it. > > > > > > Well, we should definitely not do it in 2.4.x, at least not until proven > > > that no real applications break. > > > > > > But I applied it to 2.5.x, let's see who (if anybody) hollers. > > > > I had to back this change out of 2.5.1 in order to get a sane shutdown. > > killall5 -15 is commiting suicide ;-( > > Hmm. Looking at killall5 source I see > > kill(-1, STOP); > for(each proc with p.sid!=my_sid) kill(proc, sig); > kill(-1, CONT); > > I guess STOP will stop killall5 too? Not good indeed. > > We have two choices: either back it out or find a sane way to implement > killall5 with new kill -1 behaviour.
Couldn't it just do:
sigset_t new; sigset_t savemask; sigfillset (&new); sigprocmask (SIG_BLOCK, &new, &savemask);
kill(-1, STOP); for(each proc with p.sid!=my_sid) kill(proc, sig); kill(-1, CONT);
sigprocmask (SIG_SETMASK, &savemask, (sigset_t *) 0);
... in other words, block signals, do the killing, then unblock?
Sean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |