Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262956AbUKYDcw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:32:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262955AbUKYDcw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:32:52 -0500 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:64428 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262954AbUKYDct (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:32:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:06:27 -0800 From: Matt Mackall To: George Anzinger Cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: nanosleep interrupted by ignored signals Message-ID: <20041125030627.GK2460@waste.org> References: <20041124213521.GJ2460@waste.org> <41A54731.2040607@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41A54731.2040607@mvista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1747 Lines: 50 On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 06:45:05PM -0800, George Anzinger wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > >Take the following trivial program: > > > >#include > > > >int main(void) > >{ > > sleep(10); > > return 0; > >} > > > >Run it in an xterm. Note that resizing the xterm has no effect on the > >process. Now do the same with strace: > > > >brk(0x80495bc) = 0x80495bc > >brk(0x804a000) = 0x804a000 > >rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [CHLD], [], 8) = 0 > >rt_sigaction(SIGCHLD, NULL, {SIG_DFL}, 8) = 0 > >rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [], NULL, 8) = 0 > >nanosleep({10, 0}, 0xbffff548) = -1 EINTR (Interrupted system > >call) > >--- SIGWINCH (Window changed) --- > >_exit(0) = ? > > > >In short, nanosleep is getting interrupted by signals that are > >supposedly ignored when a process is being praced. This appears to be > >a long-standing bug. > > > >It also appears to be a long-known bug. I found some old discussion of this > >problem here but no sign of any resolution: > > > >http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0108.1/1448.html > > > >What's the current thinking on this? > > This should have been resolved with the 2.6 changes, in particular, the > restart code. What kernel are you using? Indeed it is. Forgot I still had 2.4 on the box in question, didn't notice the restart bit when comparing the 2.6 code against the thread above. Mea culpa. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/