[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203486847.23194.4.camel@brick>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:54:07 -0800
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Shi Weihua <shiwh@...fujitsu.com>, 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
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:49 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I spent some time read you mail carefully and dig into the code again.
> >
> > And yes, you are right. It's possible that SA_ONSTACK has been cleared
> > before the second signal on the same stack comes.
>
> It's not necessary for SA_ONSTACK to have "been cleared", by which I assume
> you mean a sigaction call with SA_ONSTACK not set in sa_flags. That is
> indeed possible, but it's not the only case your patch broke. It can just
> be a different signal whose sigaction never had SA_ONSTACK, when you are
> still on the signal stack from an earlier signal that did have SA_ONSTACK.
>
> > So this patch is wrong :( . I will revise the other 4 patches.
>
> For 2 and 3, I would rather just wait until we unify signal.c anyway.
>
I've been looking at that, at the same time a bunch of ia32/signal.c
looks like it can go away.
Harvey
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists