Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756028Ab1DRRRi (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:17:38 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:60120 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754667Ab1DRRRd (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:17:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110418134421.GA15951@redhat.com> References: <20110418134421.GA15951@redhat.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:16:43 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] signal: sigprocmask fixes To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , "Nikita V. Youshchenko" , Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 970 Lines: 23 On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Once again: if we need this, then we need a lot more (trivial) changes > like 6/7 and 7/7. Basically every change of ->blocked should be converted > to use set_current_blocked(). OTOH, perhaps this makes sense by itself. Hmm. The more I think about this, the less I like it. What if the pending thread signal was thread-specific to begin with? For example, if we have a SIGFPE and a SIGKILL that happen at the same time, a dying task may have a SIGFPE pending when it dies, and that SIGFPE should _not_ be just distributed out to the other threads in the thread group. Am I missing something that protects against this? Linus -- 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/