[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#139886: marked as done (libc6: SIGURG action possibly POSIX violation)



Your message dated Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:11:01 +0900
with message-id <80of5mb12y.wl@oris.opensource.jp>
and subject line Bug#139886: Really a kernel issue?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Mar 2002 20:08:52 +0000
>From joey@silk.kitenet.net Mon Mar 25 14:08:52 2002
Return-path: <joey@silk.kitenet.net>
Received: from pm3-1netva34.naxs.com (silk.kitenet.net) [216.98.82.34] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 16palw-0008PO-00; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:08:52 -0600
Received: from joey by silk.kitenet.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 16pao8-0003iv-00; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:11:08 -0500
From: Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: libc6: SIGURG action possibly POSIX violation
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.48
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:11:07 -0500
Message-Id: <E16pao8-0003iv-00@silk.kitenet.net>
Sender: Joey Hess <joey@silk.kitenet.net>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-3
Severity: normal

The LSB test suite's POSIX.os component finds the following problem:

  signal SIGURG caused wrong action
  expected action: process ignored signal 23 after being unblocked
  observed action: signal 23 terminated process

It's talking about unblocking the signal because the test case earlier blocks
it (of course it's really blocked by default) and make sure that works. Then it
unblocks it, by using sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK). It appears that that is having
no effect somehow.

        /* Call sigprocmask() to unblock signal */
        (void) sigemptyset(&set);
        (void) sigaddset(&set, sg_num);
        if((ret = sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &set, (sigset_t *)NULL)) != 0) {

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux silk 2.4.18 #1 Tue Feb 26 00:23:37 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 139886-done) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Feb 2003 03:11:16 +0000
>From gotom@debian.or.jp Sat Feb 08 21:11:15 2003
Return-path: <gotom@debian.or.jp>
Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.gr.jp) [218.44.239.73] (postfix)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 18hhsA-0005Ct-00; Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:11:15 -0600
Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.jp [218.44.239.73])
	by oris.opensource.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 06872C33C6; Sun,  9 Feb 2003 12:11:01 +0900 (JST)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:11:01 +0900
Message-ID: <80of5mb12y.wl@oris.opensource.jp>
From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>
To: Jeff Licquia <licquia@progeny.com>, 139886-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#139886: Really a kernel issue?
In-Reply-To: <1044289428.1874.46.camel@laptop2.internal.licquia.org>
References: <1044289428.1874.46.camel@laptop2.internal.licquia.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya)
 FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2
 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 139886-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.3 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,
	      USER_AGENT
	version=2.41
X-Spam-Level: 

At 03 Feb 2003 11:23:50 -0500,
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The following patch appears in the LSB Test Suite FAQ as a fix to some
> unspecified problem with the T.sigconcept 10 test.  It may be,
> therefore, that this is a kernel bug, not a libc bug.
> 
> --- linux-2.4.18/arch/i386/kernel/signal.c~	Thu Mar 21 16:04:30 2002
> +++ linux-2.4.18/arch/i386/kernel/signal.c	Thu Apr 18 12:19:37 2002
> @@ -658,7 +658,7 @@
>  				continue;
>  
>  			switch (signr) {
> -			case SIGCONT: case SIGCHLD: case SIGWINCH:
> +			case SIGCONT: case SIGCHLD: case SIGWINCH: case SIGURG:
>  				continue;
>  
>  			case SIGTSTP: case SIGTTIN: case SIGTTOU:

Thanks!  I found kernel 2.4.20 signal.c has such change.
I close this bug report.

Regards,
-- gotom



Reply to: