[PATCH 0/1] tile: do_hardwall_trap: do not play with task->sighand

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 04/22, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>
> On 4/21/2011 9:03 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hmm. It turns out, I can't make the patch because I do not understand
> > what this code tries to do.
> >
> > hardwall_activate() adds the thread to hardwall_list, but do_hardwall_trap()
> > sends the signal to the whole process. I know nothing about arch/tile and
> > probably this is correct, but could you confirm this?
>
> Yes, the intended behavior is to send the signal to the process, as a way
> of indicating the OS's displeasure with sending a malformed packet on the
> user network.  But I think sending it to the specific thread is reasonable
> too; I don't have a strong preference in this design.
>
> > Note that SIGILL can be delivered to another thread in the thread-group, is
> > it correct?
> >
> > Also. Is it supposed that SIGILL can have a hanlder or can be blocked, or
> > it should always kill the whole thread group?
>
> A handler would be reasonable for the process.

OK. In this case the thread-specific SIGILL makes more sense afaics.

> > I think we need the patch below, assuming that SIGILL should be sent to
> > the single thread and it is fine to have a handler for SIGILL.
>
> Thanks; I appreciate the additional code review in any case.  I'll look at
> the ramifications of the change in more detail when I return from vacation
> late next week.

Great. I am sending the same patch + the changelog.

Please do not forget, I know _nothing_ about arch/tile, and of course the
patch was not tested.

Oleg.