linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler.
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:04:47 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FC4F94F.6030801@perens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311261037370.1524@home.osdl.org>

What happened is that I attempted to simplify the test code to send to 
you, and simplified out the problem by using
kill() instead of causing a fault. :-)

It's just what you describe here:

>One difference in 2.4.x and 2.6.x is the signal blocking wrt blocked
>signals that are _forced_ (ie anything that is thread-synchronous, like a
>SIGSEGV/SIGTRAP/SIGBUS that happens as a result of a fault):
>
> - in 2.4.x they will just punch through the block
> - in 2.6.x they will refuse to punch through a blocked signal, but
>   since they can't be delivered they will cause the process to be
>   killed
>  
>
The behavior of 2.4 seems to be the same used by some dozens of Unix 
systems upon which my confidence test passed.

I agree that we should not be wrong in the same way as everyone else, 
and wonder if POSIX says anything about this. I could have been the only 
one using this "feature".

    Thanks

    Bruce



  reply	other threads:[~2003-11-26 19:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-11-26 17:39 Signal left blocked after signal handler Bruce Perens
2003-11-26 17:55 ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found]   ` <3FC4ED5F.4090901@perens.com>
2003-11-26 18:21     ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found]     ` <3FC4EF24.9040307@perens.com>
2003-11-26 18:34       ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found]       ` <3FC4F248.8060307@perens.com>
2003-11-26 18:45         ` Never mind. " Linus Torvalds
2003-11-26 19:04           ` Bruce Perens [this message]
2003-11-26 19:14             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-11-26 19:34               ` Posix says "undefined". " Bruce Perens
2003-11-26 19:52               ` Never mind. " Jamie Lokier
2003-11-27  9:20 ` Herbert Xu
2003-11-26 21:53 Never mind. " Albert Cahalan
2003-11-27  9:11 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-11-27 15:45   ` Albert Cahalan
2003-11-27 17:26     ` Jörn Engel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3FC4F94F.6030801@perens.com \
    --to=bruce@perens.com \
    --cc=drepper@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).