Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/22/2012 04:50 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Can we really introduce force-kill semantics for a POSIX-defined signal?
>> Other user space programs might use it for other purposes.
> 
> The semantics are based on how the signal was generated, not what signal
> number it was.  The only thing that depends on the signal number is
> SYNCHRONOUS_MASK, which just determines in which order pending signals are
> dequeued (POSIX says it may be any order).  We only have that so your state
> doesn't get unhelpfully warped to another signal handler entry point
> (including fiddling the stack) before you dump core.
> 
> No use of SIGSYS is specified by POSIX at all, of course, since "system
> call" is an implementation concept below the level POSIX specifies.

I meant whether or not a signal can be blocked/caught and the fact that
the signal exists at all.

Now I guess we could have "blockable" and "unblockable" SIGSYS, but that
would seem to have its own set of issues...

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/