On 09/01, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > I'm playing at the moment with this patch, that recall Ben's idea of > attaching to the sighand only during read/poll, and calling dequeue_signal() > only with "current". This simplifies the signalfd logic quite a bit. > If this patch is applied, a task calling signalfd can read its own private > signals, and its own group signals. > > fs/exec.c | 3 > fs/signalfd.c | 186 > +++++++--------------------------------------- > include/linux/init_task.h | 2 > include/linux/sched.h | 2 > include/linux/signalfd.h | 29 ------- > kernel/exit.c | 9 -- > kernel/fork.c | 2 > kernel/signal.c | 8 - > 8 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 201 deletions(-)
Imho, very very nice. We lose the ability to read the cross-process signals, but I doubt very much we should regret about that. I cc'ed Michael, because it makes sense to document a user-visible change. With this patch, the forked child reads its own signals (not parent's) via the inherited signalfd (or if it was passed with unix socket). Small problem: unless I missed something, signalfd_deliver() and sys_signalfd() should use wake_up_all(), not wake_up() which implies nr_exclusive == 1. It is possible that we have multiple threads waiting on ->signalfd_wqh with the the different ->sigmask. In this case, the first woken thread can ignore the signal, we should wake up all of them. We can optimize this later, using a "clever" wait_queue_func_t if needed. > + spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock); > + if (next_signal(¤t->pending, &ctx->sigmask) > 0 || > + next_signal(¤t->signal->shared_pending, > + &ctx->sigmask) > 0) Very minor nit: next_signal() always returns the value >= 0, imho the "> 0" check looks a bit confusing. 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/