[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:0.069 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site