Re: [PATCH] lockfile: reset the correct signal

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

 



Hi,

On Mon, 26 May 2008, Clemens Buchacher wrote:

> In the function remove_lock_file_on_signal(), the signal handler
> for SIGINT was reset, ignoring the parameter signo.
> 
> This did not pose a problem yet, as remove_lock_file_on_signal()
> was only registered as a SIGINT handler.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@xxxxxx>
> ---
> 
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:34:11AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Only from the patch did I understand that you actually meant:
> 
> Thank you for fixing that.

Unfortunately, the original patch is already in git.git.

> I also realized that using signals like that can cause races. Shouldn't 
> we use sigaction() instead of signal()?

Dunno.  The man page suggests it, but we have plenty of cases where we use 
signal().  And I think it might be less painful to implement a 
compat-wrapper for the platforms which differ from Linux' interpretation 
of signal().

Ciao,
Dscho

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux