On 06/22, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Yeah well... I wanted to have the least surprise path... that is,
> without my patch, signalfd will "sometimes" steal the SIGSEGV depending
> on who races to the lock first, thus causing the target thread to
> re-execute the faulting instruction and taking another SIGSEGV, and
> sometimes not. It's bad from both the faulting thread point of view and
> the signalfd use who gets signals "sometimes" without any guarantee.
>
> I like the current code that at least implement a precise semantic for
> all thread local signals -> they are only ever delivered to that thread,
> period. If you really want to do funky things from outside, you can
> still do ptrace ;-)
OK. But in that case I think we should go further, and make signalfd
"per process", not "per thread", see
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118241815219430
Every thread gets its own local signals plus shared ones.
(I promise, this is the last piece of spam from me on this topic, but
please-please-please nack this patch explicitly if you don't like it :)
Oleg.
-
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/
