musl - abort() PID 1

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 01:09:32 -0700
From: Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: abort() PID 1

The recent thread about abort() and PID 1 left me in a state of
confusion, in a matter I thought was clear enough:

What I thought I understood:

- the kernel will not deliver any signal to process 1, unless a signal
handler for that particular signal has been installed

-if process 1 calls abort() (regardless of what purpose that would fill), then:

    - if a handler was setup, it should be done whatever the handler does

    - if a handler was not setup, nothing should happen (as in:
process didn't receive any signal at all)

What the standards say:

(http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/)

"The SIGABRT signal shall be sent to the calling process as if by
means of raise() with the argument SIGABRT."

"The effect of the raise() function shall be equivalent to calling:

pthread_kill(pthread_self(), sig);"

man raise(3):
The  raise()  function  sends  a  signal  to the caling process or
thread.  In a single-threaded program it is equivalent to
kill(getpid(), sig);

So, what should " kill(1, SIGABRT)" do? It doesn't seem ambiguous to
me. IOW, there's nothing special about SIGABRT regarding PID 1.

DISCLAIMER:  well-meaning amateur here. I'm pretty sure I understood
what I quoted, but I'm assuming the standard doesn't have any
self-inconsistencies.
I'm also assuming the site is authoritative.

So, can one trust the man pages?

Thanks

Jorge Almeida

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.