Re: [RFC] SIGKILL vs. SIGSEGV on late execve() failures

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri Feb 15 2013 - 19:40:44 EST

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

I have to agree with Shentino on this one: it's entirely possible that
send_sig() is always equivalent to force_sig() in this circumstance,
but rather than depend on that kind of non-local subtlety, we should
just make it obvious. This is what "force_sig()" exists for - making
it clear that we punch through any signal handlers. Whether such a
signal handler can exist or not is kind of immaterial.

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