From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get_signal() usage References: <1447836703-32594-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <20160109035125.GA365@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <5690D845.5090308@nod.at> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:52:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160109035125.GA365@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 09.01.2016 um 04:51 schrieb Al Viro: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:51:43AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> If get_signal() returns us a signal to post >> we must not call it again, otherwise the already >> posted signal will be overridden. >> Before commit a610d6e672d this was the case as we stopped >> the while after a successful handle_signal(). > > Old behaviour had been wrong. If you have several pending signals, > more than one sigframe should be built, as if the second, etc. had > been delivered right on the entry into the handler. > > Stopping after the first one is obviously wrong - consider the case > when attempt to deliver it has raised SIGSEGV. You are right. Thanks for pointing this out. Will revert. Thanks, //richard