Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Jun 2007 21:35:50 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: signalfd API issues (was Re: [PATCH/RFC] signal races/bugs, losing TIF_SIGPENDING and other woes) |
| |
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, synchronous signals should probably never be delivered to another > > > process, even via signalfd. There's no point delivering a SEGV to > > > somebody else :-) > > > > That'd be a limitation. Like you can choose to not handle SEGV, you can > > choose to have a signalfd listening to it. Of course, not with the > > intention to *handle* the signal, but with a notification intent. > > I agree that it would be a limitation, but it would be a sane one. > > How about we try to live with that limitation, if only to avoid the issue > of having the private signals being stolen by anybody else. If we actually > find a real-live use-case where that is bad in the future, we can re-visit > the issue - it's always easier to _expand_ semantics later than it is to > restrict them, so I think this thread is a good argument for starting it > out in a more restricted form before people start depending on semantics > that can be nasty..
Yeah, that's easy. We can exclude them at signalfd creation time.
- Davide
- 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/
| |