[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091020211116.2B76F81A3@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] consider stack access while checking for alternate
signal stack
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> >+ return sp >= current->sas_ss_sp &&
> >+ sp - current->sas_ss_sp < current->sas_ss_size;
>
> CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP is wrong: If your stack grows up and sp ==
> sas_ss_sp + size than you are using the last entry in your sig stack
> which will be not recognized correctly.
+ sp - current->sas_ss_sp <= current->sas_ss_size;
then?
> The case where sp == sas_ss_sp
> is also not detected correctly but this should not happen in real life.
So you say that sp==sas_ss_sp should not be considered "on the sig stack"?
> That is the PRE case which is the only relevant since we don't have any
> POST architectures. The check here produces the same results as my
> variant so it is okay :)
> So you prefer the smaller patch with comments around it?
Yes, I think it is far clearer and easier to read than what you posted.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists