This patch adds support for the Linux kill(2) function.
The next patch will add alarm(2) support, which uses kill(2).

To be honest, we sort-of implement kill(). This implementation is
compatible with the API, but the semantics are somewhat different:
While in Linux kill() causes the signal handler to run on one of the
existing threads, in this implementation, the signal handler is run in a
*new* thread.

Implementing the exact Linux semantics in OSv would require tracking when
OSv runs kernel code (i.e., code in the main executable, not a shared
object) so we can delay running the signal handler until returning to the
user code. Moreover, we'll need to be able to interrupt sleeping kernel
code. This is complicated and adds overhead even if signals aren't used
(and they aren't used in most modern code).

I expect that this code will be "good enough" in many use cases.
This code will *not* be good in enough in programs that expect one of the
following:

1. A program that by using Posix Thread's "signal masks" tried to ensure
   that the signal is delivered to one specific thread, and not to an
   arbitrary thread.

2. A program that used kill() or alarm() not intending to run a signal
   handler, but rather intending to interrupt a sleeping system call
   like sleep() or read(). Our kill() does not interrupt sleeping OSv
   function calls, which will continue to sleep on the thread they run
   on.

The support in this patch (and see next patch, for alarm()) is good
enough for netperf's use of alarm().

P.S. kill() can be used only to send a signal to the current process, the
only process we have in OSv (you can also use pid=0 and pid=-1 to achieve
the same results).

This patch also adds a test for kill() and alarm(). The alarm() test
will fail until the next patch :-)

Signed-off-by: Nadav Har'El <nyh@cloudius-systems.com>