From: Jeff D. <jd...@ad...> - 2005-01-21 14:33:24
|
bla...@ya... said: > Are we sure it is a compensation? I started having the doubt that > enabling the signal inside the handler is not the same thing... > because otherwise we don't understand why the patch in 2.4 makes > difference in TT mode. Well, it clearly does something very close to SA_NODEFER, so it's compensation in that sense. > Indeed, the blocking is done in the same way, but probably the timing > is different - i.e. we unblock the signal only after > unprotect_kernel_mem() in the new code, which somehow *makes* a > difference. Maybe. If unprotect_kernel_mem has anything to do with it, then it can only affect jail mode in tt, which I'm planning on doing away with anyway at some point. > I'm going to choose the SA_NODEFER instead of adding the explicit > check, at least for 2.4. I'd do it for 2.6 too, only that I'm not too > sure. My preference would be SA_NODEFER. Do we know who was having problems that were fixed by this? Maybe we could see what exactly SA_NODEFER does there. Jeff |