lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 03:12:30PM -0800, Shentino wrote:
> > + send_sig(SIGSEGV, current, 0);
>
> This might be a stupid miscue on my part, but shouldn't it be
> force_sig instead of send_sig?
>
> I've got this crazy hunch that having SEGV masked might muck something up.

How would you manage to have it masked at that point? setup_new_exec()
is inevitable after success of flush_old_exec() and it will do
flush_signal_handlers() for us.

And yes, flush_old_exec() and setup_new_exec() ought to be merged; the
problem with that is the stuff done between those two - setting personality,
plus playing with thread flags if needed. Unfortunately, there are non-obvious
differences between architectures, so that would have to be hashed out on
linux-arch. Doesn't affect the point above, though...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-16 01:42    [W:0.084 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site