linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] powerpc/traps: Print signal name for unhandled signals

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:44:25 -0300
From:   Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muriloo@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>,
        "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@...ilva.org>,
        Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@...il.com>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] powerpc/traps: Print signal name for unhandled
 signals

Hi, Segher.

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 02:49:03AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 12:03:50AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 08:37 +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> > > Le 31/07/2018 à 16:50, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo a écrit :
> > > I would suggest to instead use a function like this:
> > >
> > > static const char *signame(int signr)
> > > {
> > > 	if (signr == SIGBUS)
> > > 		return "bus error";
> > > 	if (signr == SIGFPE)
> > > 		return "floating point exception";
> > > 	if (signr == SIGILL)
> > > 		return "illegal instruction";
> > > 	if (signr == SIGILL)
> > > 		return "segfault";
> > > 	if (signr == SIGTRAP)
> > > 		return "unhandled trap";
> > > 	return "unknown signal";
> > > }
> >
> > trivia:
> >
> > Unless the if tests are ordered most to least likely,
> > perhaps it would be better to use a switch/case and
> > let the compiler decide.
>
> That would also show there are two entries for SIGILL (here and in the
> original patch), one of them very wrong.

Good catch.  I'll take care of that in my next respin.

> Check the table with psignal or something?

Nice suggestion.  Thanks!

Cheers
Murilo