Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:45:56 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> To: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@utell.co.uk>, FreeBSD-current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ppp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970311122719.666A-100000@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <199703110812.IAA12464@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Brian Somers wrote:
> Right, but as I pointed out, just about anything that uses Log* will
> call LogFlush() and malloc(), and malloc() isn't necessarily the only
> problem - there are almost definitely other recursion suseptable
> functions running around too, ones that aren't nice enought to tell us
> when they can't handle things. I suggest we put back the pending
> stuff in all cases except SIGSEGV (which we don't trap). With the
> usage of the "caused" variable in handle_signals fixed (I agree, that
> was a pretty terrible mistake), there should not be any other
> problems.
Few minutes ago I send you message with subject "ppp & signals pending"
not seeing this your message... Please don't miss it, here I explain
my position mainly about SIGALRM and its pending. To summarize it
I can say that I agree with restoring pending for SIGALRM, but some
additional measurement must be done before.
> Ok, so if I put (a fixed) sig.c back in there, could I ask you to do
> some testing ? I was thinking of:
>
> void handle_signals() {
> int sig;
> int had;
>
> had = caused;
> if (had)
> for (sig=0; sig<__MAXSIG; sig++)
> if (had&(1<<sig)) {
> caused &= ~(1<<sig);
> (*handler[sig])(sig+1);
> }
> }
This way you lost _number_ of signals which may come. Since all signals
mapped to single bit in "caused" bitmask, here can be f.e. 10 or more
similar signals, but only one time signal handler will be executed. You
need to replace "caused" bitmask with "int caused[__MAXSIG];" and count
true number of signals come: caused[sig]++ (decrease it when handler was
executed: caused[sig]--). BTW, why you use own __MAXSIG when standard
NSIG is available from signal.h?
--
Andrey A. Chernov
<ache@null.net>
http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970311122719.666A-100000>