On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Lionel Cons wrote:
>
> Either your ulimit -i is greater than 63000 or we have a Linux bug. If
> ulimit -i is reached then kill(1) should fail.
Traditionally kill() has never returned errors for things like this.
In fact, quite arguably POSIX actively disallows kil
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> The one thing that jumps out at me here is the number of signal-handling
> system calls. wait_sigint_handler gets installed and removed as the
> SIGINT handler a lot. I wonder if we would see an improvement if I
> used a global SIGINT handler
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> and I think one reason why the race is hard to get rid of is simply
> that system call return is _the_ common point of signal handling in
> UNIX (technically, obviously any return to user space, but there are
> no appreci
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> Let's take a step back and approach this a different way. Instead of
> trying to intuit whether or not the child did anything with the SIGINT,
> let's try to make the race condition smaller.
I can still easily see the porblem. I think your pa
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> The patch looks good. I'll take a closer look and probably produce a
> patch for bash-4.2 based on it. Thanks for taking a look.
So I think that Oleg Nesterov is correct in that the -1 return with
errno==EINTR will never actually trigger, b
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> The other case is that the child process was quick and already exited.
> You get ^C, but the child never did. When you do the waitpid(), you'll
> never get the EINTR, because there was no actual wait.
Ok, so here's
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> In the meantime, read Martin Cracauer's description of the issue.
> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/sigint.html.
This is now the second time in the thread that this has been quoted,
but bash doesn't even FOLLOW the recommendations in that web-pa
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> You do realize that this case is indistinguishable from the original
> scenario in question: the child gets the SIGINT, handles it, and exits
> successfully (or not). Have you actually not followed the discussion?
Umm. I'm the one who broug
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Illia Bobyr
wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 3:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Here's the scenario:
I'll quote the scenario again, because you clearly didn't bother to read it.
Please _READ_ it this time before you answer, ok?
>> -
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> Since the exit status of /bin/true is ignored then I think that test
> case is flawed. I think at the least needs to check the exit status
> of the /bin/true process.
>
> bash -c 'while true; do /bin/true || exit 1; done'
The "|| exit 1" doe
10 matches
Mail list logo
