Re: [PATCH v3] util: Block SIGPIPE until execve in child process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/16/19 4:02 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:


The challenge here is that we're in between fork + execve and want signal
handlers back to their defaults at time of execve.

If we set SIGPIPE to SIG_IGN and then execve() will that get reset back
to SIG_DFL automatically ?

Sadly, no. execve() does not change whether a signal is ignored or masked (ignored is more common - a number of CI systems have had issues where the child inherits SIGPIPE ignored because the parent forgot to reset it, but the child wasn't expecting it; but inheriting a signal masked is also a real issue), with the lone exception of SIGCHLD. However, execve() _does_ change a signal that is being caught in the parent into SIG_DFL post-exec.

That does mean, however, that it is viable to install a no-op SIGPIPE handler (SIGPIPE is generated but ignored, I/O gets the EPIPE as desired), then post-exec the new process will have SIG_DFL.

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list




[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux