Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures
From: Al Viro
Date: Fri Feb 15 2013 - 19:04:47 EST
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...
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/