> * Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Where, sa_mask is _ignored_ if NODEFER is set. (I now have woken up!). > > The attached program shows that the sa_mask is indeed ignored when > > SA_NODEFER is set. > > > > Now the real question is... Is this a bug? > > That's not correct w.r.t. SUSv3. sa_mask should be always used and > SA_NODEFER is just whether or not to add that signal in.
Yes. > SA_NODEFER > [XSI] If set and sig is caught, sig shall not be added to the > thread's > signal mask on entry to the signal handler unless it is included in > sa_mask. Otherwise, sig shall always be added to the thread's signal > mask on entry to the signal handler. It's amazing that this non-conformance was never spotted before. It seems to go all the way back to kernel 1.0 (when the flag was known as SA_NOMASK). I'll get something into the manual pages under BUGS. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest tarball at ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/manpages/ and grep the source files for 'FIXME'. - 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/
