content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] New SA_NOPRNOTIF sigaction flag
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:21:00 -0600
Message-ID: <21FFE0795C0F654FAD783094A9AE1DFC0874921D@cof110avexu4.global.avaya.com>
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH] New SA_NOPRNOTIF sigaction flag
Thread-Index: AcXHsTnUpYqU2fehT460YLtee0E1twAfDxkw
From: "Davda, Bhavesh P \(Bhavesh\)" <bhavesh@avaya.com>
To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <dan@debian.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1349
Lines: 36

> Hmm, the only problem with this is that it requires consensus on the
> format of kernel sigsets.  Think about the 32-vs-64-bit compatibility
> issues.
> 
> It should be cleared on PTRACE_DETACH, of course.  Do we even need the
> GET functionality?  If not, is PTRACE_SET_IGNORE_SIGNAL 
> taking a single
> signal number sufficient?

Thanks for reminding me about handling PTRACE_DETACH!

Yeah, we could go with PTRACE_SET_IGNORE_SIGNAL (signum), but we'll
still need a sigset_t like structure in struct task_struct {}. I figured
the PTRACE_SET_SIGIGN_MASK interface would be more flexible and
efficient if someone wanted to have the debugger ignore a whole bunch of
signals at once for a debuggee child.

But I agree, the GET interface is perhaps not required.

Okay, I'll whip out a preliminary patch, and you can all rip it apart if
you find issues with it. Stay tuned...

Thanks for your comments, Daniel!

- Bhavesh


Bhavesh P. Davda | Distinguished Member of Technical Staff | Avaya |
1300 West 120th Avenue | B3-B03 | Westminster, CO 80234 | U.S.A. |
Voice/Fax: 303.538.4438 | bhavesh@avaya.com
-
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/