Re: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler.

[Bruce Perens]

What happened is that I attempted to simplify the test code to send to 
you, and simplified out the problem by using
kill() instead of causing a fault. :-)

It's just what you describe here:

> One difference in 2.4.x and 2.6.x is the signal blocking wrt blocked
> signals that are _forced_ (ie anything that is thread-synchronous, like a
> SIGSEGV/SIGTRAP/SIGBUS that happens as a result of a fault):
>
> - in 2.4.x they will just punch through the block
> - in 2.6.x they will refuse to punch through a blocked signal, but
>   since they can't be delivered they will cause the process to be
>   killed
>  
The behavior of 2.4 seems to be the same used by some dozens of Unix 
systems upon which my confidence test passed.

I agree that we should not be wrong in the same way as everyone else, 
and wonder if POSIX says anything about this. I could have been the only 
one using this "feature".

   Thanks

   Bruce


-
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/