From: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@gmx.net>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
geoff@gclare.org.uk, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: Revised signalfd man-page
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:16:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4715A8A2.7020108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710151103591.5204@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Hi Davide,
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> Hi Davide,
>>
>> There were two questions that you overlooked in my earlier draft of the
>> signalfd man page. I've revised one of the questions slightly. Could you
>> look at these please:
>
> I think I already answered those, no? Anyway ...
Oops -- if you did, I lost a little context. (However, what you say below
does give me a sense of deja vu ;-).)
Can you please check my notes below:
>> .SS execve(2) semantics
>> [TO BE COMPLETED]
>> .\" FIXME
>> .\" Davide, what are the intended semantics after an execve()?
>> .\" I would hope that the descriptor remains available, and can
>> .\" be used to read any queued signals. This is analogous with
>> .\" traditional behavior, where blocked signals that are pending
>> .\" prior to an execve() remain pending after the execve().
>> .\"
>> .\" Below, was my original question, based on how things
>> .\" worked at one point, but perhaps they have changed by now:
>> .\"===
>> .\" As far as I can work out, after an execve() the file descriptor
>> .\" is still available, but reads from it always return 0, even if:
>> .\"
>> .\" a) there were signals pending before the execve().
>> .\" However, sigpending() shows the signal as pending,
>> .\" and the signal can be accepted using sigwaitinfo().
>> .\"
>> .\" b) we generate the signal after the exec.
>> .\"
>> .\" Is this intended behavior (the "orphaned sighand" condition
>> .\" described above?)? Is it a bug?
>
> With the new code Linus already merged, signalfd does not attach to the
> sighand anymore, so the "orphaned sighand" behaviour is no more there.
> An exec() will carry the fd over, and you will be able to use the fd in
> the same way you did before the exec(). If sigpending()/sigwaitinfo() will
> show signals available, so it should signalfd.
So I wrote:
execve(2) semantics
Just like any other file descriptor, a signalfd file
descriptor remains open across an execve(2), unless it
has been marked for close-on-exec (see fcntl(2)). Any
signals that were available for reading before the
execve(2) remain available to the newly loaded program.
(This is analogous to traditional signal semantics, where
a blocked signal that is pending remains pending across
an execve(2).) (This is analogous to traditional signal
semantics, where a blocked signal that is pending remains
pending across an execve(2).)
Okay?
>> .SS Thread semantics
>> [TO BE COMPLETED]
>> .\" FIXME Davide, a signal can be directed to the process as
>> .\" a whole, or to a particular thread. What are the intended
>> .\" semantics for signalfd()? If a thread calls signalfd(),
>> .\" does the resulting file descriptor return just those
>> .\" signals directed to [the thread and the process as a whole],
>> .\" or will it also receive signals that are targeted at
>> .\" other threads in the process?
>
> It'll return the signals that would be normally returned to the thread
> with the standard signal delivery methods. That is, calling thread private
> signals, and calling thread-group shared signals.
So I wrote:
Thread semantics
The semantics of signalfd file descriptors in a multi-
threaded program mirror the standard semantics for sig-
nals. In other words, when a thread reads from a sig-
nalfd file descriptor, it will read the signals that are
directed to the thread itself and the signals that are
directed to the process (i.e., the entire thread group).
(A thread will not be able to read signals that are
directed to other threads in the process.)
Okay?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest tarball at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/manpages/
read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source files for 'FIXME'.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-17 6:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-27 12:19 Revised signalfd man-page Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-27 12:40 ` Heikki Orsila
2007-09-27 12:44 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-27 17:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-09-27 17:19 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-10-15 6:54 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-10-15 18:14 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-10-17 6:16 ` Michael Kerrisk [this message]
2007-10-17 22:52 ` Davide Libenzi
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=4715A8A2.7020108@gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages@googlemail.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=geoff@gclare.org.uk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk-manpages@gmx.net \
--cc=subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox