[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1607041526500.30017@s1.palsenberg.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:30:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Igmar Palsenberg <igmar@...senberg.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
cc: Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@...il.com>
Subject: Re: abort() PID 1
> > - the kernel will not deliver any signal to process 1, unless a signal
> > handler for that particular signal has been installed
> >
>
> not all signals behave that way.
For pid 1 this is the case. Unless some signals are exempt from this.
> > -if process 1 calls abort() (regardless of what purpose that would fill), then:
> >
> > - if a handler was setup, it should be done whatever the handler does
> >
> > - if a handler was not setup, nothing should happen (as in:
> > process didn't receive any signal at all)
> >
>
> this is raise(SIGABRT), abort is different.
Different how ? The manual says it's just a signal unblock followed by a
kill(self, SIGABRT).
>
> >
> > What the standards say:
> >
> > (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/)
> >
> > "The SIGABRT signal shall be sent to the calling process as if by
> > means of raise() with the argument SIGABRT."
> >
>
> it also says
>
> "The abort() function shall cause abnormal process termination
> to occur, unless the signal SIGABRT is being caught and the
> signal handler does not return."
>
> and
>
> "The abort() function shall not return."
>
> (in c11 abort is _Noreturn and returning from such a function
> is undefined behaviour).
Hmm.. What happens if a hander is installed, but that never returns ? (but
also doesn't terminate the process). If I read the manpage correct, it
says it's OK, but also says it isn't.
Igmar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
