Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get_signal() usage

From	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get_signal() usage
Date	2016-01-09 11:00 +0100
Message-ID	<qOYtt-3H2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qw6KT-Af-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <qOSR3-8bI-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Am 09.01.2016 um 04:51 schrieb Al Viro:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:51:43AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> If get_signal() returns us a signal to post
>> we must not call it again, otherwise the already
>> posted signal will be overridden.
>> Before commit a610d6e672d this was the case as we stopped
>> the while after a successful handle_signal().
> 
> Old behaviour had been wrong.  If you have several pending signals,
> more than one sigframe should be built, as if the second, etc. had
> been delivered right on the entry into the handler.
> 
> Stopping after the first one is obviously wrong - consider the case
> when attempt to deliver it has raised SIGSEGV.

You are right. Thanks for pointing this out.
Will revert.

Thanks,
//richard

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get_signal() usage Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-09 05:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get_signal() usage Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-09 05:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] um: Fix get_signal() usage Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> - 2016-01-09 11:00 +0100

csiph-web