Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:16:04 -0400 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>, Maxim Konovalov <maxim.konovalov@gmail.com>, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dd dies on SIGUSR1 Message-ID: <20110322181604.GA47588@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinzhKi-sfW-kz9W6EkA0WtB5-nO0gpyCLRyyHCn@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTikoZNpmM83%2BU-0AWhO43K67gKNq1dZ4UnL2UAPo@mail.gmail.com> <201103221457.p2MEvJub035858@lurza.secnetix.de> <AANLkTinzhKi-sfW-kz9W6EkA0WtB5-nO0gpyCLRyyHCn@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011, Chris Rees wrote: > Since POSIX has SIGUSR[12] as undefined, I think it's a POLA violation > to have processes die when provided. Quite the contrary: The default behavior of SIGUSR1 on FreeBSD follows both POSIX and historical precedent, so changing it would be a violation of POLA. Terminating the process is also the default on Linux. Linux dd's interpretation of SIGUSR1 seems rather poorly considered, since as you note, utilities that don't handle it will simply die unexpectedly. However, it certainly wouldn't hurt to patch FreeBSD's dd to handle SIGUSR1 the same way as SIGINFO.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110322181604.GA47588>