[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ldv8movu.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:51:01 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...omail.com>
Cc: "Rich Felker" <dalias@...c.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [bug] Ctrl-Z when process is doing posix_spawn makes the
process hard to kill
* Askar Safin:
> Thanks a lot for answer!
>
> ---- On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:37:09 +0400 Rich Felker wrote ---
> > Note that SIGSTOP, which is not blockable interceptible or ignorable,
> > can't be handled this way, but the pid has not yet leaked to anything
> > at this point, so the only way SIGSTOP can be generated is by a badly
> > behaved program signaling random pids, which is not a case that needs
> > to be handled gracefully.
>
> But what if somebody sends SIGSTOP to whole process group using kill(2)?
I would expect that they send SIGCONT afterwards to the same process
group, to resume execution of all processes. Doesn't this avoid the
issue?
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.
