[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080220102721.GE3881@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:27:21 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Shi Weihua <shiwh@...fujitsu.com>, 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
* Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> 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.
ok, i've removed these patches from x86.git#testing for now:
Subject: x86: improve the signal stack overflow logic, 32-bit
Subject: x86: add a signal stack overflow check, 64-bit
Subject: x86: add signal stack overflow check, 32-bit
and will wait for a resubmission and an Ack from Roland.
Ingo
--
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