[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-21 20:27    [W:0.159 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site