LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler.
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:14:25 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311261108350.1524@home.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FC4F94F.6030801@perens.com>



On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> The behavior of 2.4 seems to be the same used by some dozens of Unix
> systems upon which my confidence test passed.

Interesting. I know the 2.4.x behaviour wasn't arrived at due to any
"compatibility testing" - it was purely a matter of "minimal code". The
fact that other unixes did the same despite no other commonalities is
interesting in itself ;)

But we actually had another unrelated thread about this last week, where
SIGTRAP on x86 worked differently under Linux and FreeBSD (both 2.4.x and
2.6.x behaviour differed from BSD behaviour), so clearly it's _not_ a 100%
correlation.

> I agree that we should not be wrong in the same way as everyone else,
> and wonder if POSIX says anything about this. I could have been the only
> one using this "feature".

I can't say that I'd ever seen this documented anywhere.

I personally think it is "good taste" to actually set the SA_NODEFER flag
if you know you depend on the behaviour, but if there are lots of existing
applications that actually depend on the "forced punch-through" behaviour,
then I'll obviously have to change the 2.6.x behaviour (a stable
user-level ABI is a lot more important than my personal preferences).

But if ElectricFence is the only thing that cares, I'd rather just EF
added a SA_NODEFER..

		Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2003-11-26 19:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-11-26 17:39 Bruce Perens
2003-11-26 17:55 ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found]   ` <3FC4ED5F.4090901@perens.com>
2003-11-26 18:21     ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found]     ` <3FC4EF24.9040307@perens.com>
2003-11-26 18:34       ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found]       ` <3FC4F248.8060307@perens.com>
2003-11-26 18:45         ` Never mind. " Linus Torvalds
2003-11-26 19:04           ` Bruce Perens
2003-11-26 19:14             ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2003-11-26 19:34               ` Posix says "undefined". " Bruce Perens
2003-11-26 19:52               ` Never mind. " Jamie Lokier
2003-11-27  9:20 ` Herbert Xu
2003-11-26 21:53 Never mind. " Albert Cahalan
2003-11-27  9:11 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-11-27 15:45   ` Albert Cahalan
2003-11-27 17:26     ` Jörn Engel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0311261108350.1524@home.osdl.org \
    --to=torvalds@osdl.org \
    --cc=bruce@perens.com \
    --cc=drepper@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: Never mind. Re: Signal left blocked after signal handler.' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).