On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 12:41:21PM -0200, vda wrote:
> On Monday 17 December 2001 07:34, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> > > > The new POSIX 1003.1-2001 is explicit about what kill(-1,sig)
> > > > is supposed to do. Maybe we should follow it.
> > >
> > > Well, we should definitely not do it in 2.4.x, at least not until proven
> > > that no real applications break.
> > >
> > > But I applied it to 2.5.x, let's see who (if anybody) hollers.
> >
> > I had to back this change out of 2.5.1 in order to get a sane shutdown.
> > killall5 -15 is commiting suicide ;-(
>
> Hmm. Looking at killall5 source I see
>
> kill(-1, STOP);
> for(each proc with p.sid!=my_sid) kill(proc, sig);
> kill(-1, CONT);
>
> I guess STOP will stop killall5 too? Not good indeed.
>
> We have two choices: either back it out or find a sane way to implement
> killall5 with new kill -1 behaviour.
Couldn't it just do:
sigset_t new;
sigset_t savemask;
sigfillset (&new);
sigprocmask (SIG_BLOCK, &new, &savemask);
kill(-1, STOP);
for(each proc with p.sid!=my_sid) kill(proc, sig);
kill(-1, CONT);
sigprocmask (SIG_SETMASK, &savemask, (sigset_t *) 0);
... in other words, block signals, do the killing, then unblock?
Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:12 EST