Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 10/10/12 2:53 AM, lanshun zhou wrote:
>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.2 (Santiago)
>> uname -r: 2.6.32-220.17.1.el6.x86_64
>> bash version: bash-4.1.2-9.el6_2.src.rpm (also tested with bash-4.2
>> compiled from source
>> with patches bash42-001~bash42-037)
>>
>> When interrupt_immediately is set, handler for signals registered by trap
>> is called
>> immediately after the signal is triggered. But many function calls in
>> trap_handler
>> are not async-signal-safe, so it's unsafe and could cause bash to enter
>> a deadlock.
>
> Thanks for the report. This has been under discussion for a long time.
>
> There are a couple of issues: how one satisfies users' expections of
> responsiveness, and what to do with partially-read input. The work on
> that continues.
>
> Right now, I've been running a slightly modified version of your script
> (I changed the echo -n ? to echo ? to avoid stdio buffering issues) for
> over an hour on a RHEL5 system without any lockups. I have ideas about
> what to do to reduce the potential deadlock window, but I need a way to
> measure the effect of those changes.
>
> Chet
>
> --
> ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
> ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
> Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu
> http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/bugs-in-trap-signal-handling-tp34536400p34545570.html
Sent from the Gnu - Bash mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
