Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:25:12 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |