[Bug libc/746] New: sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[Bug libc/746] New: sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[sebastien dot decugis at ext dot bull dot net]

The Single Unix Specification (aka POSIX) requires that when the SA_RESETHAND
flag is set in sigaction, the function behaves as if SA_NODEFER is already set.

This is not the case with glibc 2.3.4 (NPTL enabled) and kernel 2.6.11-rc2-bk3.

-- 
           Summary: sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER
           Product: glibc
           Version: 2.3.4
            Status: NEW
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P2
         Component: libc
        AssignedTo: gotom at debian dot or dot jp
        ReportedBy: sebastien dot decugis at ext dot bull dot net
                CC: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com


http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=746

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/746] sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[sebastien dot decugis at ext dot bull dot net]

------- Additional Comments From sebastien dot decugis at ext dot bull dot net  2005-02-16 10:02 -------
Created an attachment (id=409)
 --> (http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=409&action=view)
Testcase for the bug 746

Usage:
    ./bug_sigaction X
Where X is:
 O  to have the SA_NODEFER flag set explicitely
 1  to have only SA_RESETHAND
According to POSIX, the behavior should be the same.

I get:
$ ./bug_sigaction 0
Both SA_NODEFER and SA_RESETHAND are set.
Test PASSED

$ ./bug_sigaction 1
Only SA_RESETHAND is set -- SA_NODEFER is implicit.
Test bug_sigaction.c FAILED: Signal was masked when SA_NODEFER was implicitely
set


-- 


http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=746

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/746] sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[drepper at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com  2005-09-27 00:52 -------
sigaction in libc is only a thin wrapper around the system call.  Any such
change should happen in the kernel.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=746

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/746] sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[michael dot kerrisk at gmx dot net]

------- Additional Comments From michael dot kerrisk at gmx dot net  2006-09-21 05:12 -------
Sebastien,

A while back I also noticed this point where Linux seems to devaite from
POSIX, or vice versa.  I hadn't got round to testing other implementations,
but now I've run your program on some other systems:

FreeBSD 6.1: same results as Linux.

Solaris 8: same results as Linux.

HP-UX 11: passes both tests, according to your program.

Since POSIX generally standardizes existing practice, I'm
not sure what this all means.  Have you tried your program
on some other systems?

Cheers,

Michael

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=746

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/746] sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[sebastien dot decugis at ext dot bull dot net]

------- Additional Comments From sebastien dot decugis at ext dot bull dot net  2006-09-21 07:47 -------
Hi Michael,

At the time of the testing I was concerned about the conformance of the NPTL
implementation to the POSIX standard. I may have tried the tests on a couple of
other implementations, but I did not keep track of these.

Even though POSIX standardizes existing practices, this happens at the time when
the POSIX standard is being defined. Once it has been written, I think an
implementation must conform to what is written, or it is not fully
POSIX-conformant. Anyway if you feel the POSIX standard is not suitable on this
point, there are mailing lists to submit changes and fix to the standard.

Best regards,
seb.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=746

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/746] sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[michael dot kerrisk at gmx dot net]

------- Additional Comments From michael dot kerrisk at gmx dot net  2006-10-05 03:38 -------
Hi Sebastien,

Some further tests (by someone I communicated with) show that
Solaris 10 and Unixware 2 also don't comply.

I have mentioned the widespread non-conformance to someone
at The Open Group.  Something may change as a result.  I will
try to remember to post here.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=746

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libc/746] sigaction SA_RESETHAND flag does not set SA_NODEFER

[michael dot kerrisk at gmx dot net]

------- Additional Comments From michael dot kerrisk at gmx dot net  2006-12-02 22:54 -------
I had some communication with someone in the opengroup.  It looks like (i.e.,
this is not 100% decided yet) the standard is going to be changed to permit
either behaviour (i.e., the currently specified behaviour, or the actual
behaviour of Linux and many other implementations).

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=746

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.