From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 8 15:23:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75FC16A4DE; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:23:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from arginine.incunabulum.net (arginine.spc.org [83.167.185.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDB243D49; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:22:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.incunabulum.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D131CC52; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:22:30 +0100 (BST) Received: from arginine.incunabulum.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.incunabulum.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5bF0wVOy3VrI; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:22:27 +0100 (BST) Received: by arginine.incunabulum.net (Postfix, from userid 1078) id 35A3A1CC21; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:22:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 16:22:27 +0100 From: Bruce M Simpson To: Yar Tikhiy Message-ID: <20060808152227.GA58271@incunabulum.net> Mail-Followup-To: Bruce M Simpson , Yar Tikhiy , Bruce M Simpson , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org References: <200608021305.k72D5c9R055142@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060808093035.GK54416@comp.chem.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060808093035.GK54416@comp.chem.msu.su> Organization: Incunabulum User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Bruce M Simpson , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/reboot reboot.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:23:13 -0000 On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 01:30:35PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > By the way, did you consider the other policy, "default to deny," > there: Mask all signals with sigfillset(), then unmask only those > we are willing to handle, and finally pass the mask to sigprocmask()? > That should be more robust, IMHO. Thanks! I was preparing to make this change years ago but phk@ persuaded me in a review to be more conservative; though I agree that would be an improvement. BMS