-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Bruno Haible on 6/17/2008 7:17 PM: |> @@ -96,11 +98,10 @@ init_fatal_signals (void) |> struct sigaction action; |> |> if (sigaction (fatal_signals[i], NULL, &action) >= 0 |> + && (action.sa_flags & SA_SIGINFO) == 0 |> && action.sa_handler == SIG_IGN) |> fatal_signals[i] = -1; |> } | | What does this SA_SIGINFO business mean? Why do you need to check whether | (sa_flags & SA_SIGINFO) == 0 when sa_handler is known to be SIG_IGN?
Pre-existing bug. POSIX states that sa_handler and sa_siginfo may, but not must, occupy overlapping space, and that sa_handler must not be accessed if sa_flags includes SA_SIGINFO. Therefore, it is conceivable to have an implementation where action.sa_handler is garbage and happens to be SIG_IGN, because only action.sa_siginfo was valid to access. (In reality, all implementations I am aware of, including my replacement, use a union and let the two function definitions overlap, so this is more of a theoretical bug fix.) Should I use a separate commit for this bug fix? - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkhYZDEACgkQ84KuGfSFAYBpeQCgwAlcZfCBTAXgN1xEw17L4cfE eQcAnRjn08ozxDAxn4vzP0JjkZ9puxD3 =Q2J+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
