linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflow check

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]

Message-Id: <20080219185009.122ED2701BA@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:50:09 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Shi Weihua <shiwh@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflow
 check

This change looks bogus to me.  Before I get to the content, there is a nit
that annoys me.  You changed the punctuation in my comment so that it no
longer means what it did, and now the comment is nonsensical.  I don't
demand decent English from hackers of any linguistic bent, but please don't
louse up the coherent sentences I wrote when moving them down ten lines.

Please elaborate on the rationale that justifies this change.
I don't see it at all.

If you are already on the signal stack, it doesn't matter whether the
signal that just arrived has SA_ONSTACK set or not.  If you are going to
overflow the stack with the new signal frame, we want to prevent that
clobberation regardless.

Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/