Re: Signal handling possibly wrong

[Michael Kerrisk]

> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Where, sa_mask is _ignored_ if NODEFER is set. (I now have woken up!).
> > The attached program shows that the sa_mask is indeed ignored when
> > SA_NODEFER is set.
> > 
> > Now the real question is... Is this a bug?
> 
> That's not correct w.r.t. SUSv3.  sa_mask should be always used and
> SA_NODEFER is just whether or not to add that signal in.

Yes.

> SA_NODEFER
>     [XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the 
>     thread's
>     signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in
>     sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal
>     mask on entry to the signal handler.

It's amazing that this non-conformance was never spotted before.
It seems to go all the way back to kernel 1.0 (when the flag
was known as SA_NOMASK).

I'll get something into the manual pages under BUGS.

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 ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/manpages/
and grep the source files for 'FIXME'.
-
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/