From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 13 16:35:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F5237B400; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746FF43E7B; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:35:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0032.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.32] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17elBu-0000LF-00; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:35:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D599778.6EFFA843@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:34:16 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Evans Cc: Tim Robbins , David Xu , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sig.c (fwd) References: <20020814033444.N29606-100000@gamplex.bde.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Bruce Evans wrote: > Er, I didn't point out anything like this, and thought that it wasn't > a kernel problem. It's certainly not a problem at fork() time. [ ... ] > I think unwanted SIGTTOU's are just a sympto. Here's the source of my confusion; I thought that you meant they were the proximal cause. > > What about chpass, vipw, and the other pw_edit() consumers? vipw > > works correctly wrt suspending with ^Z on 4.6-RELEASE, but does not > > on -CURRENT. As far as I can see, pw_edit()'s logic has not been changed. > > Here is a trace for vi and vipw (but not the shell) from when I hit ^Z > in the editor to when the shell is given control because vi is bogusly > stopped again: [ ... ] > This ioctl blocks and the shell gains control. Apparently vi is still > in the background at this point, but it shouldn't be... Or maybe which > process is in the background depends on races, and it is normal for > vi to block here (please check on RELENG_4 if you have it handy), and > the problem is simply a missing or extra signal that results in vi not > being put back in the foreground. This does not happen in 4.1-RELEASE or 4.4-RELEASE, AFAICT. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message