Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 02:49:28 -0700 From: Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@...il.com> Subject: Re: abort() PID 1 On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote: > * Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@...il.com> [2016-07-04 01:09:32 -0700]: >> 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 >> > > not all signals behave that way. Would you elaborate on that? (links?) > > this is raise(SIGABRT), abort is different. Quotes in my first message say it's the same: >> >> (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." >> > > it also says > > "The abort() function shall cause abnormal process termination > to occur, unless the signal SIGABRT is being caught and the > signal handler does not return." > > and > > "The abort() function shall not return." > This is where I see an inconsistency... > > there is no inconsistency. > > abort should raise(SIGABRT) and it should terminate the process. > > (normally there should be an abort syscall provided by the kernel, > but linux does not have it.) > >> So, can one trust the man pages? > > not always, use the standard for standard interfaces. Too bad... Thanks Jorge
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.