In the context of lib/fatal-signal.c, I find that SA_RESETHAND is not
appropriate: If a fatal signal handler cleanup is interrupted by another
fatal signal, it is better to start the cleanup a second time rather than
terminating the program with incomplete cleanup.
OK to apply?
2008-06-22 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/fatal-signal.c (fatal_signal_handler): Update comment.
(install_handlers): Don't set the SA_RESETHAND flag.
--- lib/fatal-signal.c.orig 2008-06-22 22:04:56.000000000 +0200
+++ lib/fatal-signal.c 2008-06-22 21:55:10.000000000 +0200
@@ -160,9 +160,10 @@
}
/* Now execute the signal's default action.
- If any cleanup action blocks the signal that triggered the cleanup, the
- re-raised signal is delivered when this handler returns; otherwise it
- is delivered already during raise(). */
+ If the signal being delivered was blocked, the re-raised signal would be
+ delivered when this handler returns. But the way we install this handler,
+ no signal is blocked, and the re-raised signal is delivered already
+ during raise(). */
uninstall_handlers ();
raise (sig);
}
@@ -176,9 +177,10 @@
struct sigaction action;
action.sa_handler = &fatal_signal_handler;
- /* One-shot handling - if we fault while handling a fault, the
- cleanup actions are intentionally cut short. */
- action.sa_flags = SA_NODEFER | SA_RESETHAND;
+ /* If we get a fatal signal while executing fatal_signal_handler, enter
+ fatal_signal_handler recursively, since it is reentrant. Hence no
+ SA_RESETHAND. */
+ action.sa_flags = SA_NODEFER;
sigemptyset (&action.sa_mask);
for (i = 0; i < num_fatal_signals; i++)
if (fatal_signals[i] >= 0)
