On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 19:15 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > Ok, why instead don't we go for something like the attached patch? > > We exclude sync signals from signalfd, but we don't limit signalfd to > > shared signals. Ie, we should be able to fetch a signal sent with > > sys_tkill() to threads different from "current", that otherwise we would > > not be able to fetch. > > Ben, sorry but my memory sucks ... the "notifier" thing was fine in that > > case, no? > > I'm generally nervous about the idea of letting signalfd dequeue > somebody else private signals... even if we filter out SEGV's and > friends but I'll let Linus decide there. > > Regarding the notifier, it's dodgy in most cases I'd say but I suppose > it should be allright to only worry about "current" and not the target > task there.
I believe that once we exclude synchronous signals from being dequeued, we should be fine. Limiting all signals sent with sys_tkill() from being dequeued with a signalfd is a too restricting behaviour IMO. - Davide - 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/
