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

[Shentino]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Shentino <shentino@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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 wouldn't know for sure but I read somewhere that even if execve
> resets handled signals, it didn't also say that ignored signals were
> also reset.  (Source: execve man page.)

Also, apologies for the terminology mix-up.  By masked, I mean that
the signal was ignored as directed by userspace a-la signal(SIGSEGV,
SIG_IGN).

Plus I *think* that signal ignore masks are preserved across an exec.

Again, I might just be a clueless newbie here.
--
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/