Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:32 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] signals: collect_signal: remove the unneeded sigismember() check |
| |
On 05/20, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > It's basically the equivalent of a "spin_lock_irq()" for DRM, where > > signals are the "interrupts" that need to be blocked while holding the > > lock. > > Well, sure, that makes sense. But that's not what it does. I can see what > it does, I just can't tell why it really makes any sense.
As for me, I can't even see what it does,
> Despite the name, block_all_signals() in fact blocks no signals. What > it does is install notifier/notifier_mask, which makes the hook get > called for those particular signals and it can decide to delay the > signal (in a kooky fashion that's not really reliable).
Suppose that the task has the pending SIG which is "blocked" by DRM.
dequeue_signal() calls ->notifier(), it nacks the signal, we clear TIF_SIGPENDING. Then dequeue_signal() does recalc_sigpending() and sets TIF_SIGPENDING again. We return 0 to get_signal_to_deliver(), and then return to user-space with TIF_SIGPENDING. Endless loop ?
Even if it works somehow... "blocking" SIG means that in fact we "block" SIG+1, SIG+2, etc if SIG is pending.
> drm_lock uses a mask containing only the stop signals (SIGSTOP, SIGTSTP, > SIGTTOU, SIGTTIN).
and of course this can't work for multithread programs, another thread can dequeue SIGTSTP and initiate a group stop.
Oleg.
| |