Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756081AbYFBK5T (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:57:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751956AbYFBK5J (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:57:09 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.236]:14086 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233AbYFBK5I (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:57:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hFl8KcIiBYAZCAqdGjzJwW/nqJWPGA9pCKFGDk3MDCXauWjN3XkGUrsp7nAZEUaVO0b6GwQn22/P7ImluKJNk9p2bhAaUKKTMUdjNFouSXfjkH0YlnJOIqPyT1VinU5Nbwo2CAcUfvZMrxO9wXd0QHnnPbZeXVrtoP2Y39vF3Mk= Message-ID: <19f34abd0806020357w6478704dt50226f51c6c62701@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:57:07 +0200 From: "Vegard Nossum" To: "Alan Cox" Subject: Re: 2.6.25.3: su gets stuck for root Cc: "Alan Cox" , "David Newall" , "Willy Tarreau" , "Harald Dunkel" , "Joe Peterson" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080602105210.GH18697@devserv.devel.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <48434D57.6030801@skyrush.com> <48438126.3080308@t-online.de> <20080602053256.GF5609@1wt.eu> <20080602091016.571dda7c@core> <4843B6EE.8080104@davidnewall.com> <20080602102033.63e4cd18@core> <19f34abd0806020316v4135935dxff04bcf663ebd4bf@mail.gmail.com> <19f34abd0806020339m100fd3f8m6c0c6ff0c08a66d2@mail.gmail.com> <20080602105210.GH18697@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1183 Lines: 30 On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:29PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: >> Shouldn't it be EINTR to allow the signal to be processed and let the >> process decide whether to retry the tcsetattr()? > > The signal is processed, and then application retries the tcsetattr and > gets another one. The default TTOU behaviour is to block and then fg > continues the call so RESTARTSYS is both correct and has been used for > years > Hm, yes, that seems correct. I'm sorry for the wrong suggestions. I guess this still doesn't explain why TTOU doesn't block (IOW, stop the process, right?) in this case, because my test program does not touch it. Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 -- 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/