Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:47:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Hans Zaunere <zaunere@yahoo.com> To: brian o'shea <boshea@netapp.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Signal Handling Message-ID: <20010815024750.21433.qmail@web12802.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010814152536.B27553@netapp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [...] > > 2) If a 10k binary is running, the signal is sent, > and > > the program is reloaded from disk, but is 100k (or > 1k > > even) how does the signal handling function get > > called, taking into account what Stevens says. > Steven > > states that the sigmask remains for calls across > exec, > > so wouldn't the wrong address to the handler > function > > be used? > > No, the signal mask is not the address of the > handler function. It is > the bit mask which determines which signals are > blocked. > Sorry, I think I miss spoke myself. If a signal handler is setup in the running process, and exec is called, replacing the same program, but this time, the program is much smaller or bigger, will the signal handler function be in the right place? The same program is exec'd, but since it's a different size, won't the signal handler function pointer, point to the wrong place? In general, if exec'ing a process (regardless if its the same or not) how are signal handlers sustained, so that the new process has them as well? Thank you Hans __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010815024750.21433.qmail>