Re: rbootd: simplify signal handling

2016-05-28 Thread Theo de Raadt
Jeremie Courreges-Anglas writes: > ok ok deraadt also. > I doubt you'll get test reports. Shouldn't this kind of software be > moved to the ports tree, eventually? I fear that the percentage of > users that actually need rbootd is fairly small... Well, I dunno about moving it to ports. When s

Re: rbootd: simplify signal handling

2016-05-28 Thread Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
Philip Guenther writes: > Actually, the signal handling was simplified 14(!) years ago by miod@ when > he changed rbootd to do all processing from its main loop, with signals > just setting flags tested there. This diff just removes the blocking and > unblocking that was rendered superfluous

Re: rbootd: simplify signal handling

2016-05-21 Thread Philip Guenther
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: ... > I believe this removes the last uses of the obsolete sigblock(), > sigsetmask(), and sigmask() from non-GNU base. ...other than the calls from inside libc** by setjmp/longjmp/sigsetjmp/siglongjmp on some archs, which kettenis and I ar

rbootd: simplify signal handling

2016-05-21 Thread Philip Guenther
Actually, the signal handling was simplified 14(!) years ago by miod@ when he changed rbootd to do all processing from its main loop, with signals just setting flags tested there. This diff just removes the blocking and unblocking that was rendered superfluous by that previous change. Back wh