Re: [PATCH 2.5.73] Signal stack fixes #1 introduce PF_SS_ACTIVE

[Jörn Engel]

On Fri, 4 July 2003 17:39:01 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> I think we should just continue to do what we do now - sure, we'll loop on 
> SIGSEGV, but hey, it's a user space bug, it's not the kernels problem. 
> It's better to let people continue to do stupid things than try to force 
> changes.
> 
> So how about something like the appended? Very simple patch,i and in fact 
> it's more logical than the old behaviour (the old behaviour punched 
> through blocked signals, the new ones says "if you block or ignore the 
> signal we will just kill you through the default action").

That seems to be the best solution.  Thanks!

> ---
> --- 1.86/kernel/signal.c	Mon Jun  2 13:37:11 2003
> +++ edited/kernel/signal.c	Fri Jul  4 17:29:43 2003
> @@ -797,10 +797,11 @@
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> -	if (t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN)
> +	if (sigismember(&t->blocked, sig) || t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN) {
>  		t->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
> -	sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);
> -	recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
> +		sigdelset(&t->blocked, sig);
> +		recalc_sigpending_tsk(t);
> +	}
>  	ret = specific_send_sig_info(sig, info, t);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t->sighand->siglock, flags);
>  
> 

Jörn

-- 
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra