Re: nanosleep interrupted by ignored signals

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 06:45:05PM -0800, George Anzinger wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >Take the following trivial program:
> >
> >#include <unistd.h>
> >
> >int main(void)
> >{
> >	sleep(10);
> >	return 0;
> >}
> >
> >Run it in an xterm. Note that resizing the xterm has no effect on the
> >process. Now do the same with strace:
> >
> >brk(0x80495bc)                          = 0x80495bc
> >brk(0x804a000)                          = 0x804a000
> >rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [CHLD], [], 8) = 0
> >rt_sigaction(SIGCHLD, NULL, {SIG_DFL}, 8) = 0
> >rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [], NULL, 8) = 0
> >nanosleep({10, 0}, 0xbffff548)          = -1 EINTR (Interrupted system
> >call)
> >--- SIGWINCH (Window changed) ---
> >_exit(0)                                = ?
> >
> >In short, nanosleep is getting interrupted by signals that are
> >supposedly ignored when a process is being praced. This appears to be
> >a long-standing bug.
> >
> >It also appears to be a long-known bug. I found some old discussion of this
> >problem here but no sign of any resolution:
> >
> >http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0108.1/1448.html
> >
> >What's the current thinking on this?
> 
> This should have been resolved with the 2.6 changes, in particular, the 
> restart code.  What kernel are you using?

Indeed it is. Forgot I still had 2.4 on the box in question, didn't
notice the restart bit when comparing the 2.6 code against the thread
above. Mea culpa.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.