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

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Al Viro 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.

 So just to be completely safe here -- is your proposed change going to 
affect processes being traced anyhow?  E.g. won't GDB see some sort of a 
limbo state when the child is terminated this way?  According to ptrace(2) 
man page SIGKILL is the only exception to the usual child signal trapping 
policy.

  Maciej