Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Hello,
>
> do you have suggestions on this patch? It replaces any `signal' with
> `sigaction'.
[snip]
> diff --git a/src/timeout.c b/src/timeout.c
> index 8b506f0..6ef7218 100644
> --- a/src/timeout.c
> +++ b/src/timeout.c
> @@ -278,8 +278,6 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
> /* Setup handlers before fork() so that we
> handle any signals caused by child, without races. */
> install_signal_handlers ();
> - signal (SIGTTIN, SIG_IGN); /* don't sTop if background child needs tty.
> */
> - signal (SIGTTOU, SIG_IGN); /* don't sTop if background child needs tty.
> */
Moving these after the fork() introduces a race
I think as per the comment.
> + struct sigaction sa_ignore;
> +
> + memset (&sa_ignore, 0, sizeof sa_ignore);
Note since C90 this is equivalent to memset(0):
struct sigaction sa_ignore = {0,};
> + sigemptyset (&sa_ignore.sa_mask);
> + sa_ignore.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
> +
> + sigaction (SIGTTIN, &sa_ignore, NULL); /* don't sTop if background
> child needs tty. */
> + sigaction (SIGTTOU, &sa_ignore, NULL); /* don't sTop if background
> child needs tty. */
As I mentioned previously it might be better
for us to define our own function that calls sigaction,
but has the same interface as signal() as this is
a much cleaner interface and usually all that's required.
thanks,
Pádraig.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
