Thank you very much for the feedback.
On 3/14/14 9:38 AM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
According to the sigaction(3) manual, volatile sig_atomic_t would
be better. If i understand correctly, overzealous compilers might
otherwise optimize checks away.
Dammit, of course. I should have caught that.
Hi Jean-Philippe,
Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote on Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 07:11:05PM -0400:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:09:14PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
I don't really like the warnx(3) call from the bye() ALRM handler
either, but that's a separate matter.
Me neither.
Maybe something like
Hello,
When lock(1) receives SIGINT, SIGQUIT, or SIGTSTP, it calls hi()
twice, once because it's the signal handler, and once after
readpassphrase() errors because the read was interrupted.
Since hi() gets called when readpassphrase() fails anyway, this
patch ignores the signals instead of using
a separate matter.
OK to commit?
Ingo
- Forwarded message from Jean-Philippe Ouellet -
From: Jean-Philippe Ouellet jean-phili...@ouellet.biz
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:08:19 -0400
To: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: lock(1) timeout message deduplication
Hello,
When lock(1) receives SIGINT
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:09:14PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
I don't really like the warnx(3) call from the bye() ALRM handler
either, but that's a separate matter.
Me neither.
Maybe something like this instead? (although maybe the done check should
be someplace else?)
Index: lock.c
