This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: einval-on-wrong-args patch
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:50:19PM +0300, Egor Duda wrote:
>Friday, 16 February, 2001 Christopher Faylor email@example.com wrote:
>>> return EINVAL if signal() or lseek() are called with illegal
>CF> Either your signal() change is not quite right, or sigaction() is wrong.
>CF> sigaction() allows setting the handler for SIGKILL to SIG_DFL. Is
>CF> that incorrect? If not, then please modify your change (and check it in).
>CF> If it is the incorrect behavior, could you fix sigaction, too?
>SUSv2 is a bit vague on the subject, but this program
> struct sigaction act;
> act.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
> act.sa_flags = 0;
> act.sa_sigaction = NULL;
> sigemptyset ( &act.sa_mask );
> if ( signal ( SIGKILL, SIG_DFL ) == SIG_ERR ) perror ("signal" );
> if ( sigaction ( SIGKILL, NULL, NULL ) ) perror ( "sigaction1" );
> if ( sigaction ( SIGKILL, &act, NULL ) ) perror ( "sigaction2" );
>when run on linux, prints
>signal: Invalid argument
>sigaction2: Invalid argument
>so perhaps sigaction should be fixed. moreover, SUSv2 says that if we
>add SIGKILL or SIGSTOP to sa_mask, this should be silently ignored.
Hopefully that much is true, at least.
Would you mind checking in your patch and fixing sigaction to conform to