Any comments ? Here's another perspective : Why should a CGI process block the delivery of all those signals that are not of interest to httpd ? -Madhu
________________________________
From: Mathihalli, Madhusudan
Sent: Tue 4/13/2004 9:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: mod_cgi and apr_setup_signal_thread
You're partially correct. Here's whatz happening:
worker.c: child_main() invokes apr_setup_signal_thread()
signals.c: apr_setup_signal_thread()
-> sigfillset(&sig_mask);
remove_sync_sigs(&sig_mask);
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &sig_mask, NULL)
-> Thus disabling the delivery of async signals to the process
mod_cgi comes along, forks a child process and happily inherits the signal mask from
the parent (the only thing apr_proc_create() does is to change SIGCHLD to default
behaviour).
-Madhu
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:55 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: mod_cgi and apr_setup_signal_thread
>
>
>Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>> I'm using the worker MPM for both mod_cgi and mod_cgid.
>
>I don't see any httpd 2.0/apr 0.9 code which manipulates
>SIGALRM. Can you give
>me a pointer?
>
<<winmail.dat>>
