[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/5] signal: Teach sigsuspend to use set_user_sigmask
On 06/13, David Laight wrote:
> > And you interpret this as if a pending signal should be delivered in any case,
> > even if pselect succeeds. Again, perhaps you are right, but to me this is simply
> > undocumented.
> This text (from is moderately clear:
> ... if all threads within the process block delivery of the signal, the signal shall
> remain pending on the process until a thread calls a sigwait() function selecting that
> signal, a thread unblocks delivery of the signal, or the action associated with the signal
> is set to ignore the signal.
> So when pselect() 'replaces the signal mask' any pending signals should be delivered.

I fail to understand this logic.

> > However, linux never did this. Until the commit 854a6ed56839 ("signal: Add
> > restore_user_sigmask()"). This commit caused regression. We had to revert it.
> That change wasn't expected to change the behaviour...


And the changed behaviour matched your understanding of standard. We had to
change it back.

So what do you want from me? ;)


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-13 17:22    [W:0.145 / U:4.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site