Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:40:34 +0400 | | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | | Subject | Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals |
| |
On 06/22, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Yeah well... I wanted to have the least surprise path... that is, > without my patch, signalfd will "sometimes" steal the SIGSEGV depending > on who races to the lock first, thus causing the target thread to > re-execute the faulting instruction and taking another SIGSEGV, and > sometimes not. It's bad from both the faulting thread point of view and > the signalfd use who gets signals "sometimes" without any guarantee. > > I like the current code that at least implement a precise semantic for > all thread local signals -> they are only ever delivered to that thread, > period. If you really want to do funky things from outside, you can > still do ptrace ;-)
OK. But in that case I think we should go further, and make signalfd "per process", not "per thread", see
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118241815219430
Every thread gets its own local signals plus shared ones.
(I promise, this is the last piece of spam from me on this topic, but please-please-please nack this patch explicitly if you don't like it :)
Oleg.
- 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/
|  |