Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:24:18 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] protect /sbin/init from unwanted signals more |
| |
On 11/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 11/19, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > > The effect is fine, but that seems like a kludgey way to do it. > > Agreed, that is why I did the next patch to kill the ugliness. > > > I really don't think the sigaction case matters--certainly it will never > > come up with SIGKILL. > > Yes. This patch doesn't affect sigaction, the next one adds a very
(this one, not the next one)
> minor side effect: init drops pending !sig_kernel_ignore() signals > if it does sigaction(SIG_IGN). But this has nothing to do with SIGKILL > of course.
Ah sorry, now I see I misunderstood you...
You mean, we shouldn't touch the sigaction() path. Now I am wondering if it is really OK to drop signals if init does sigaction(SIG_DFL), perhaps you are right.
Oleg.
| |