Re: sighals and sockets

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>]

Gladish, Jacob wrote:

> > Sounds like write() is segfaulting for some reason, and the segv is 
> > being caught by libgcj's segv handler, which converts segv's into 
> > NullPointerExceptions.
> >    
>
>
> > From this stack trace, it looks to me as though write gets a SIGPIPE in
> 9173, then the pthread_sighandler segv's trying to call the signal
> handler, which sets off the segv handler in the runtime. 
>  
Yeah, you're right. But why is this thread getting a SIGPIPE? Shouldn't 
it be blocked?

> > I don't think so. send() can potentially generate a SIGPIPE just like 
> > write(), according to my glibc docs.
> >
> >    
>
> The send() manpage mentions a MSG_NOSIGNAL option. I was under the
> impression that it pretty much ment no SIGPIPEs. It's not very clear as
> to whether that's the case or if there are other cases which may
> generate the signal that are not covered by the option.
Oh, ok. My glibc manual must be too old to mention that. In that case, 
switching to send() is an option. But I'd like to understand why you're 
getting a SIGPIPE delivered in the first place.

Bryce