On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:52:26 GMT, David Holmes <dhol...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this fix for JDK-8285792. The fix removes print statements >> from check_signal_handler() so that it doesn't print all the handlers every >> time it finds one that is modified. Instead, it returns true if the handler >> is modified, false otherwise. Its caller, user_handler(), then prints all >> the handlers just once even if multiple signal handlers were modified. >> >> The fix also adds a check for VMError::crash_handler_adress() to >> check_signal_handler() to prevent it from being treated as a signal handler >> modification. >> >> The fix was tested with Mach5 tiers 1-2 on Linux and Mac OS and Mach 5 tiers >> 3-5 on Linux x64. The regression test is excluded on Windows. >> >> Thanks, Harold > > Looking at [JDK-4229104](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-4229104) I have > to wonder whether our handling of `SIGPIPE` is still necessary? Even if so, > the fact we always ignore it if we get it suggests we really don't care if > someone else has installed a (temporary) handler for it, so perhaps we should > not include it (or `SIGXFSZ`) in these checks? @dholmes-ora Thanks for looking at this. Please review the latest changes. Should I enter a new rfe to look at JVM handling of SIGPIPE and SIGXFSZ in these checks? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9631
