[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-20 21:27    [W:0.020 / U:31.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site