Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Tue Aug 01 2006 - 10:42:02 EST

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:54:47PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >
> > This patch (b0423a0d9cc836b2c3d796623cd19236bfedfe63)
> >
> > [PATCH] Remove duplicate code in signal.c
> >
> > reverts a patch introduced by Linus long time back.
> Good catch.
> > Was this intentional?
> >
> > With the current mainline code, SIGSEGV inside a SIGSEGV handler will endup
> > in linux handling endless recursive faults.
> >
> > Just wondering if this has been discussed before and is intentional.
> It certainly wasn't discussed, and I don't think it was intentional. We
> should _not_ just unblock a blocked signal. We should kill the process,
> because sending the signal is actually very very wrong.
> Paul? Should I just revert, or did you have some deeper reason for it?

I cannot claim any deep thought on this one, so please do revert it.

Next time I submit a patch to code with which I am not intimately
familiar, I clearly need to carefully review the earlier patches. :-/

Thanx, Paul
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at