On 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, force_sig() unblocks and un-ignores the signal. However, unlike
> > group-wide
> > signals, thread-specific signals do not convert themselves to SIGKILL on
> > delivery.
> > The target thread should dequeue SIGSEGV and then it calls do_group_exit().
>
> No it couldn't.
>
> Why? Because the target thread is the one that *caused* the SIGSEGV in the
> first place. It's not going to dequeue *anything*. It's either going to
> take the SIGSEGV,
Hmm, can't understand.
Yes, the target thread is the one that caused the SIGSEGV, it sends the signal
to itself. entry.S:ret_from_exception should notice this signal and _dequeue_
it, no? This signal could be stealed by signal(SIG_IGN) which runs after it
was delivered.
> or it's going to get another SIGSEGV and now it's no
> longer masked/handled and it's going to die.
Yes sure. As I said,
> and the target thread will take page fault again.
My point was that it is _possible_ to steal a thread-local SIGSEGV even without
signalfd, nothing bad should happen.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
