Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] selftests: Add a test mangling with uc_sigmask

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

 




On 7/22/24 20:28, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 7/15/24 05:49, Dev Jain wrote:

On 6/30/24 20:48, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I see nothing wrong, but perhaps this test can be simplified?
Feel free to ignore.

Say,

On 06/27, Dev Jain wrote:
+void handler_usr(int signo, siginfo_t *info, void *uc)
+{
+    int ret;
+
+    /*
+     * Break out of infinite recursion caused by raise(SIGUSR1) invoked
+     * from inside the handler
+     */
+    ++cnt;
+    if (cnt > 1)
+        return;
+
+    ksft_print_msg("In handler_usr\n");

This message isn't very useful. Why do you need this message?


There isn't any specific use; I am just showing the progress

of the test. If you think this is just waste output....


+
+    /* SEGV blocked during handler execution, delivered on return */
+    if (raise(SIGSEGV))
+        ksft_exit_fail_perror("raise");>>> +
+    ksft_print_msg("SEGV bypassed successfully\n");
You could simply do sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, NULL, &oldset) and check if SIGSEGV is blocked in oldset. SIG_SETMASK has no effect if newset == NULL.


IMHO, isn't raising the signal, and the process not terminating, a stricter test? I have already included your described approach in
the last testcase; so, the test includes both ways: raising the
signal -> process not terminating, and checking blockage with sigprocmask().

thanks,
-- Shuah





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux