Re: [patch] signal handler defaulting fix ...

[Davide Libenzi]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > 
> > It's not that the program try to block the signal. It's the kernel that 
> > during the delivery disables the signal. Then when the signal handler 
> > longjmp(), the signal remains disabled. The next time the signal is raised 
> > again, the kernel does not honor the existing handler, but it reset to 
> > SIG_DFL.
> 
> So? That program is buggy. Setting the signal handler to SIG_DFL causes it 
> to be killed with a nice "killed by SIGFPE" message, and now the bug is 
> visible, and can be fixed.
> 
> Hint: it should have done a siglongjmp().

That's what I posted him. Three examples on how to make the thing work 
w/out kernel fixes. Then Andries investigated about POSIX compliancy and 
noticed that basically it is undefined the behaviour a program will get. 
Let's leave as is then.



- Davide

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/