David Xu wrote: > > Both different reports have been from Tim Robbins. It may > > be that he has a local problem, and that his local problem > > is greatly confusing this discussion. > > > > If you can not repeat his second problem on -current locally, > > I would be tempted to dismiss it as being a local problem, and > > not a general one. > > > > Tim was also the person who posted the GPL'ed path that I was > > worried that Andrey was using against "su"; not to disparage > > anyone, but most of my personal confusion has been coming from > > things Tim said... 8-). > > My machine may be different with Tim's, it is a P4 1.5G CPU, > its speed maybe fast enough to skip the problem. BTW, bde has > also reported the problem, so this is serious, wouldn't kernel > send out SIGTTOU when null change a foreground group is enough > to fix the problem?. but why don't they block SIGTTOU when > calling tcsetpgrp()?
Bruce reported the first problem, with su, which arose from DES changing the code to support PAM, and to have an extra fork, where it didn't before. Bruce reported that he *didn't* have the second problem reported by Tim Robbins, which appears to be local to his site (a search of the archives indicates that he is the only one reporting it). The patch that Tim posted, which is GPL'ed because of its origin, and therefore unusable exacept as a model, "fixes" the problem by blocking the signal delivery before the fork. Note that merely blocking the delivery means that the signal will be delivered later, since block sugnals are accumulated, not discarded (see what the patch does, for details). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message