Re: [PATCH 21/30] bsd-user/signal.c: force_sig

[Kyle Evans]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 2:53 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 20:29, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 at 16:44, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Force delivering a signal and generating a core file.
>
> > > +/* Abort execution with signal. */
> > > +void QEMU_NORETURN force_sig(int target_sig)
> >
> > In linux-user we call this dump_core_and_abort(), which is
> > a name that better describes what it's actually doing.
> >
> > (Today's linux-user's force_sig() does what the Linux kernel's
> > function of that name does -- it's a wrapper around
> > queue_signal() which delivers a signal to the guest with
> > .si_code = SI_KERNEL , si_pid = si_uid = 0.
> > Whether you want one of those or not depends on what BSD
> > kernels do in that kind of "we have to kill this process"
> > situation.)
>
> It looks like the FreeBSD kernel uses sigexit() as its equivalent
> function to Linux's force_sig(), incidentally. Not sure if
> you/we would prefer the bsd-user code to follow the naming that
> FreeBSD's kernel uses or the naming linux-user takes from
> the Linux kernel.
>

My $.02: let's go with linux-inherited linux-user names and drop in a
comment with the FreeBSD name, if they're functionally similar enough
(in general, not just for this specific case). My gut feeling is that
it'll be more useful in the long run if we can more quickly identify
parallels between the two, so changes affecting linux-user that may
benefit bsd-user are more easily identified and exchanged (and
vice-versa).

Thanks,

Kyle Evans