lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] signal: sigprocmask fixes
    On 04/18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > Once again: if we need this, then we need a lot more (trivial) changes
    > > like 6/7 and 7/7. Basically every change of ->blocked should be converted
    > > to use set_current_blocked(). OTOH, perhaps this makes sense by itself.
    >
    > Hmm. The more I think about this, the less I like it.
    >
    > What if the pending thread signal was thread-specific to begin with?

    These patches should not change the current behaviour in this case.
    We never try to re-target the thread-specific signals. Note that
    retarget_shared_pending() checks ->signal->shared_pending only.

    > For example, if we have a SIGFPE and a SIGKILL that happen at the same
    > time, a dying task may have a SIGFPE pending when it dies, and that
    > SIGFPE should _not_ be just distributed out to the other threads in
    > the thread group.

    Yes, and it won't be.

    Btw, we do not need to distribute SIGKILL too, we can change
    retarget_shared_pending() to remove SIGKILL from shared_pending.
    But this only matters when the caller is exit_signals(), and in
    this case it should likely notice signal_group_exit() unless
    SIGKILL (in unlikely case) it comes in between.

    Or I misunderstood?

    Oleg.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-04-18 19:35    [W:0.022 / U:33.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site