Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: signal: handle_signal() should usesigprocmask()

[Matt Fleming]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:22:01 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is ugly, but if sigprocmask() needs retarget_shared_pending() then
> handle signal should follow this logic. In theory it is newer correct to
							   ^^^ never

> add the new signals to current->blocked, the signal handler can sleep/etc
> so we should notify other threads in case we block the pending signal and
> nobody else has TIF_SIGPENDING.
> 
> Of course, this change doesn't make signals faster :/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I guess all assigments to current->blocked need auditing now? Forcing
everything through sigprocmask() seems worthwhile to me.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/