Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] signal: sigprocmask fixes

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Once again: if we need this, then we need a lot more (trivial) changes
> like 6/7 and 7/7. Basically every change of ->blocked should be converted
> to use set_current_blocked(). OTOH, perhaps this makes sense by itself.

Hmm. The more I think about this, the less I like it.

What if the pending thread signal was thread-specific to begin with?

For example, if we have a SIGFPE and a SIGKILL that happen at the same
time, a dying task may have a SIGFPE pending when it dies, and that
SIGFPE should _not_ be just distributed out to the other threads in
the thread group.

Am I missing something that protects against this?

                  Linus
--
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/