On 04/15, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:49:50 +0200 Matthieu CASTET > <matthieu.cas...@parrot.com> wrote: > > > The only valid remaining part of my patch is to return SIGKILL when > > load_elf_interp fail (IS_ERR((void *)elf_entry) is true) (for example load > > address of linker is bad) instead of SIGSEGV. This will follow what is done > > when > > loading binary. > > > > But is it even worth doing? > > SIGSEGV can be caught
Actually it can't be, flush_signal_handlers() was already called. SIGSEGV can be blocked/ignored after that, but please note that force_sig_info(SIGSEGV) will unblock and set SIG_DFL if necessary. In short, force_sig() will actuallu kill the task in any case. But: afaics send_sig(SIGSEGV) above load_elf_interp() is wrong, we should either use SIGKILL (which can't be ignored/blocked) or force_sig. > that would be a user-visible change. Yes. waitpid(&status) can notice the difference. > I just > don't know what the implications of such a change would be :( Mee too... Looks harmless but still. OTOH, I do not know why/when we should use SIGKILL or SIGSEGV in this code. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
