lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-06 06:39    [W:3.436 / U:0.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site