On 08/15, Jamie Iles wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1194,7 +1194,11 @@ force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct
> task_struct *t)
> recalc_sigpending_and_wake(t);
> }
> }
> - if (action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_
When forcing a signal, SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE is removed to prevent recursive
faults, but this is undesirable when tracing. For example, debugging an
init process (whether global or namespace), hitting a breakpoint and
SIGTRAP will force SIGTRAP and then remove SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE.
Everything continues f
Hi Oleg,
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> I am sorry for being slow... yes, probably we should start with this
> simple change, and perhaps we do not really need anything else. But
> let me think about this till Monday, perhaps we can remove this "cle
Hi Oleg,
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I am sorry for being slow... yes, probably we should start with this
> simple change, and perhaps we do not really need anything else. But
> let me think about this till Monday, perhaps we can remove this "clear
> SIGNAL_UNK
Hi Jamie,
I am sorry for being slow... yes, probably we should start with this
simple change, and perhaps we do not really need anything else. But
let me think about this till Monday, perhaps we can remove this "clear
SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE" logic in force_sig_info() altogether.
On 05/04, Jamie Iles w
When forcing a signal, SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE is removed to prevent recursive
faults, but this is undesirable when tracing. For example, debugging an
init process (whether global or namespace), hitting a breakpoint and
SIGTRAP will force SIGTRAP and then remove SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE.
Everything continues f
6 matches
Mail list logo
