On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 18:06 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:14 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > The commited "Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals" > > > (commit caec4e8dc85e0644ec24aeb36285e1ba02da58cc) doesn't implement > > > this. > > > > Indeed, if you want what Davide described, you need to also change > > signalfd side. The patch I did merely prevents another thread from > > dequeuing somebody else private signals. > > Yes I see, but why do we need this change? Yes, we can dequeue SIGSEGV > from another thread. Just don't do it if you have a handler for SIGSEGV?
Well, for such synchronous signals, it's a fairly stupid idea, especially since you can't predict who will get it. Signals such as SEGV are forced-in, which means they are force-unblocked. Thus, you can't know for sure whome of signalfd or the target thread will get it first, depending on who catches the siglock first I suppose. In one case, you'll manage to steal it, in the other, you'll thread will be killed. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
