Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 03:12:30PM -0800, Shentino wrote:
> > +                               send_sig(SIGSEGV, current, 0);
> 
> This might be a stupid miscue on my part, but shouldn't it be
> force_sig instead of send_sig?
> 
> I've got this crazy hunch that having SEGV masked might muck something up.

How would you manage to have it masked at that point?  setup_new_exec()
is inevitable after success of flush_old_exec() and it will do
flush_signal_handlers() for us.

And yes, flush_old_exec() and setup_new_exec() ought to be merged; the
problem with that is the stuff done between those two - setting personality,
plus playing with thread flags if needed.  Unfortunately, there are non-obvious
differences between architectures, so that would have to be hashed out on
linux-arch.  Doesn't affect the point above, though...