lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
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?

Linus
----
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.
*/
-
int
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 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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean