All of lore.kernel.org
 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
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.