Re: 2.6.x signal handler bug

[Steve G]

> > So, maybe the restoring to SIG_DFL was not required, but it doesn't seem
> > incorrect either. It may be a bit surprising.

Right. Thanks for looking deeper Andries. I understood Davide's explanation and
then immediately wondered why the program worked under 2.4. I want to think 2.4
was emulating the unreliable signal from the past when signal() was used. 

My main concern is that the behavior change may have broken some applications
that used to work. For example, valgrind caught & reported a problem under 2.4,
but valgrind never had a chance to catch it under 2.6.
 
> I think so. Maybe the attached patch?

I've applied the second patch to my kernel & started recompiling. I'll re-test it
tomrrow.

Thanks,
-Steve Grubb


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/