Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765539AbXFSUIQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:08:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762988AbXFSUIF (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:08:05 -0400 Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:58182 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762463AbXFSUIE (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:08:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:08:18 +0400 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linus Torvalds , Nicholas Miell , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals Message-ID: <20070619200818.GA122@tv-sign.ru> References: <1182108399.3794.4.camel@entropy> <1182125303.3794.8.camel@entropy> <1182127391.26853.207.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070619091452.GA94@tv-sign.ru> <1182254988.26853.334.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070619140646.GB27343@tv-sign.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1401 Lines: 36 On 06/19, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 06/19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 13:14 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > The commited "Fix signalfd interaction with thread-private signals" > > > > (commit caec4e8dc85e0644ec24aeb36285e1ba02da58cc) doesn't implement > > > > this. > > > > > > Indeed, if you want what Davide described, you need to also change > > > signalfd side. The patch I did merely prevents another thread from > > > dequeuing somebody else private signals. > > > > Yes I see, but why do we need this change? Yes, we can dequeue SIGSEGV > > from another thread. Just don't do it if you have a handler for SIGSEGV? > > I believe it can be confusing to have private signals dequeued from > another thread. The kernel expect those to be dequeued by the target > thread. Well, I think the kernel doesn't make any assumptions on that. It can't guarantee the signal will be actually dequeued, to begin with. (That said, I probably missed something, in that case I'd like to be educated. This is the real reason why I am making the noise :) Oleg. - 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/