On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:30:23PM +0000, Bae, Chang Seok wrote: > On Mar 26, 2021, at 03:30, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:56:53PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> We really ought to have a SIGSIGFAIL signal that's sent, double-fault > >> style, when we fail to send a signal. > > > > Yeap, we should be able to tell userspace that we couldn't send a > > signal, hohumm. > > Hi Boris, > > Let me clarify some details as preparing to include this in a revision. > > So, IIUC, a number needs to be assigned for this new SIGFAIL. At a glance, not > sure which one to pick there in signal.h -- 1-31 fully occupied and the rest > for 33 different real-time signals. > > Also, perhaps, force_sig(SIGFAIL) here, instead of return -1 -- to die with > SIGSEGV. I think this needs to be decided together with userspace people so that they can act accordingly and whether it even makes sense to them. Florian, any suggestions? Subthread starts here: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CALCETrXQZuvJQrHDMst6PPgtJxaS_sPk2JhwMiMDNPunq45YFg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
