Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:13:32 -0700
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:25:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
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.
Well, I do have to say that I like the notion of trying to have the _same_
semantics for "force_sig_info()" and "force_sig_specific()", so in that
way your patch is fine - I just missed the fact that it changed it back to
the old broken ones (that results in endless SIGSEGV's if the SIGSEGV
happens when setting up the handler for the SIGSEGV and other
"interesting" issues, where a bug can result in the user process hanging
instead of just killing it outright).
I guess I am glad I was not -totally- insane when submitting the
original patch. ;-)
However, I wonder if the _proper_ fix is to just either remove
"force_sig_specific()" entirely, or just make that one match the semantics
of "force_sig_info()" instead (rather than doing it the other way - change
for_sig_specific() to match force_sig_info()).
One question -- the original (2.6.14 or thereabouts) version of
force_sig_info() would do the sigdelset() and recalc_sig_pending()
even if the signal was not blocked, while your patch below would
do sigdelset()/recalc_sig_pending() only if the signal was blocked,
even if it was not ignored. Not sure this matters, but thought I
should ask.
force_sig_info() has only two uses, and both should be ok with the
s/force_sig_info/force_sig_specific/? I see >100 uses of force_sig_info().
force_sig_specific() semantics, since they are for SIGSTOP and SIGKILL
respectively, and those should not be blockable unless you're a kernel
thread (and I don't think either of them could validly ever be used with
kernel threads anyway), so doing it the other way around _should_ be ok.
OK, SIGSTOP and SIGKILL cannot be ignored or blocked. So wouldn't
they end up skipping the recalc_sig_pending() in the new code,
where they would have ended up executing it in the 2.6.14 version
of force_sig_specific()?
Assuming I am at least semi-sane, one possible way to fix shown below.
Thanx, Paul
Paul, Suresh, would something like this work for you instead?
Linus
----
diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
index 7fe874d..bfdb568 100644
--- a/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/kernel/signal.c
@@ -791,22 +791,31 @@ out:
/*
* Force a signal that the process can't ignore: if necessary
* we unblock the signal and change any SIG_IGN to SIG_DFL.
+ *
+ * Note: If we unblock the signal, we always reset it to SIG_DFL,
+ * since we do not want to have a signal handler that was blocked
+ * be invoked when user space had explicitly blocked it.
+ *
+ * We don't want to have recursive SIGSEGV's etc, for example.
*/
-
int
force_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t)
{
unsigned long int flags;
- int ret;
+ int ret, blocked, ignored;
int alwaysfatal;
+ struct k_sigaction *action;
spin_lock_irqsave(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
- if (t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN) {
- t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
- }
- if (sigismember(&t->blocked, sig)) {
- sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);
+ action = &t->sighand->action[sig-1];
+ ignored = action->sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN;
alwaysfatal = sig == SIGKILL || sig == SIGSTOP;
+ blocked = sigismember(&t->blocked, sig);
+ if (blocked || ignored) {
if (blocked || ignored || alwaysfatal) {
+ action->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
+ if (blocked) {
if (blocked || alwaysfatal) {
+ sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);-
+ recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
+ }
}
- recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
ret = specific_send_sig_info(sig, info, t);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- From: Siddha, Suresh B
- Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- References:
- synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- From: Siddha, Suresh B
- Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- From: Paul E. McKenney
- Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- From: Linus Torvalds
- synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 10/33] i386: Relocatable kernel support.
- Next by Date: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Previous by thread: Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- Next by thread: Re: synchronous signal in the blocked signal context
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
