Re: Signal handling bugaboo in command substitution

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 09:30:42 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Peter Stephenson
> <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, probably ESUB_NOMONITOR should take precedence.  That's really
> > not a good place to allow this stuff, no matter who thought it might be...
> 
> Aside from the spurious ChangeLog diff and the inconsistent
> left-curly-brace cuddling, this seems to do what was intended.

It occurs to me there's probably still a very thin race associated with
forking and then calling entersubsh() that may be wider than just this
case.  We'd need to queue signals before the fork and unqueue them in
both parent and child at the end of entersubsh().  It might well be more
trouble than it's worth to fix.

pws