Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 26/26] uprobes: queue signals whilethread is singlestepping.
From: Srikar Dronamraju
Date: Thu Oct 06 2011 - 02:04:45 EST
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> [2011-10-05 20:01:39]:
> Srikar, I am still reading this series, need more time to read this
> patch, but:
> On 09/27, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > I did a rethink and implemented this patch a little differently using
> > block_all_signals, unblock_all_signals. This wouldnt need the
> > #ifdeffery + no changes in kernel/signal.c
> No, Please don't. block_all_signals() must be killed. This interface
> simply do not work. At all. It is buggy as hell. I guess I should ping
> David Airlie again.
I could use sigprocmask instead of block_all_signals.
The patch (that I sent out as part of v5 patchset) uses per task
pending sigqueue and start queueing the signals when the task
singlesteps. After completion of singlestep, walks thro the pending
But I was thinking if I should block signals instead of queueing them in
a different sigqueue. So Idea is to block signals just before the task
enables singlestep and unblock after task disables singlestep.
Instead of using block_all_signals, I could use sigprocmask to achieve
Which approach do you suggest or do you have any other approach to look
Thanks and Regards
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/