[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context

    On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > >
    > > Paul? Should I just revert, or did you have some deeper reason for it?
    > I cannot claim any deep thought on this one, so please do revert it.

    Well, I do have to say that I like the notion of trying to have the _same_
    semantics for "force_sig_info()" and "force_sig_specific()", so in that
    way your patch is fine - I just missed the fact that it changed it back to
    the old broken ones (that results in endless SIGSEGV's if the SIGSEGV
    happens when setting up the handler for the SIGSEGV and other
    "interesting" issues, where a bug can result in the user process hanging
    instead of just killing it outright).

    However, I wonder if the _proper_ fix is to just either remove
    "force_sig_specific()" entirely, or just make that one match the semantics
    of "force_sig_info()" instead (rather than doing it the other way - change
    for_sig_specific() to match force_sig_info()).

    force_sig_info() has only two uses, and both should be ok with the
    force_sig_specific() semantics, since they are for SIGSTOP and SIGKILL
    respectively, and those should not be blockable unless you're a kernel
    thread (and I don't think either of them could validly ever be used with
    kernel threads anyway), so doing it the other way around _should_ be ok.

    Paul, Suresh, would something like this work for you instead?

    diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
    index 7fe874d..bfdb568 100644
    --- a/kernel/signal.c
    +++ b/kernel/signal.c
    @@ -791,22 +791,31 @@ out:
    * Force a signal that the process can't ignore: if necessary
    * we unblock the signal and change any SIG_IGN to SIG_DFL.
    + *
    + * Note: If we unblock the signal, we always reset it to SIG_DFL,
    + * since we do not want to have a signal handler that was blocked
    + * be invoked when user space had explicitly blocked it.
    + *
    + * We don't want to have recursive SIGSEGV's etc, for example.
    force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t)
    unsigned long int flags;
    - int ret;
    + int ret, blocked, ignored;
    + struct k_sigaction *action;

    spin_lock_irqsave(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
    - if (t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN) {
    - t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
    - }
    - if (sigismember(&t->blocked, sig)) {
    - sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);
    + action = &t->sighand->action[sig-1];
    + ignored = action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN;
    + blocked = sigismember(&t->blocked, sig);
    + if (blocked || ignored) {
    + action->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
    + if (blocked) {
    + sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);
    + recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
    + }
    - recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
    ret = specific_send_sig_info(sig, info, t);
    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.026 / U:54.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site