On 12/02, Simon Holm Th?gersen wrote: > > s??n, 02 12 2007 kl. 18:14 +0300, skrev Oleg Nesterov: > > > > Please comment, I think at least the idea is promising. > > > I have an issue that sounds related, but I might be completely off. I > would expect the simple attached program to keep receiving the same > signal, i.e. respond to > killall signal-exec -s SIGHUP > > I tried your patches, but they didn't help. > > Any ideas? > > > Simon Holm Th??gersen
> #include <signal.h> > #include <stdio.h> > #include <unistd.h> > > static char **argv_; > > static void handler(int signal) > { > printf("got signal %d\n", signal); > execv(argv_[0], argv_); > } > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > printf("spawned\n"); > argv_ = argv; > if (signal(SIGTERM, handler) == SIG_ERR) > err(1, "could not set signal handler for SIGTERM"); > if (signal(SIGHUP, handler) == SIG_ERR) > err(1, "could not set signal handler for SIGTERM"); > sleep(60); > return 0; > } > I think this is another issue which should be solved (?). exec() from the signal handler doesn't do sys_sigreturn(), so we don't unblock the signal, and it remains blocked after exec(). Hmm. Is this linux bug, or application bug? 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/