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

From: Maciej W. Rozycki
Date: Fri Feb 15 2013 - 19:47:57 EST

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Al Viro 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.

So just to be completely safe here -- is your proposed change going to
affect processes being traced anyhow? E.g. won't GDB see some sort of a
limbo state when the child is terminated this way? According to ptrace(2)
man page SIGKILL is the only exception to the usual child signal trapping

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