Re: another subtle signals issue

From: Roland McGrath (
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 22:13:33 EST

> You probably mean ERESTARTSYSNOHAND.

Indeed, that's the right one for functions like semop that are specified in
1003.1-2001 explicitly to wake up when a signal was caught. I read the
SA_RESTART wording as not intending to apply to functions that say that

> There are lots of system calls that simply are not restartable.

POSIX permits partial results for cases like read and write. Those aside,
and leaving aside calls in uninterruptible sleeps (in which stops take
place only after the sleep wakes), POSIX would seem to require that they be
restarted when there is a job control stop and continue.

> > The reason I am concerned about this is that I think any case that is
> > broken by the lack of the optimization in the patch below must also be
> > broken vis a vis the semantics of stop signals and SIGCONT (when SIG_DFL,
> > SIG_IGN, or blocked). POSIX says that when a process is stopped by
> > e.g. SIGSTOP, and then continued by SIGCONT, any functions that were in
> > progress at the time of stop are unaffected unless SIGCONT runs a handler.
> > That is, nobody returns EINTR because of the stop/continue.
> This is what ERESTARTNOHAND does [...]

ERESTARTSYS and ERESTARTNOHAND only differ when a handler is run,
which is not the case I am talking about.

> The old code tried rather hard to make signals that were truly ignored
> (SIGSTOP/SIGCONT is not of that kind)

POSIX clearly specifies that stopping and continuing "shall not affect the
behavior of any function" (when SIGCONT is SIG_DFL or SIG_IGN, or is blocked).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:36 EST