linux-kernel - Re: MIPS: return after handling coprocessor 2 exception

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:	Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:54:38 +0400
From:	"Gleb O. Raiko" <raiko@...si.msk.ru>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
CC:	Jesper Nilsson <jesper@....nu>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: MIPS: return after handling coprocessor 2 exception

On 17.06.2010 21:13, David Daney wrote:
> On 06/17/2010 06:25 AM, Jesper Nilsson wrote:
>> Breaking here dropped us to the default code which always sends
>> a SIGILL to the current process, no matter what the CU2 notifier says.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jesper Nilsson<jesper@....nu>
[...]
>> case 2:
>> raw_notifier_call_chain(&cu2_chain, CU2_EXCEPTION, regs);
>> - break;
>> + return;
>>
>
> What happens when the call chain is empty, and the proper action *is*
> SIGILL?

It's never empty, in fact. The default notifier declared at top of 
traps.c sends SIGILL. The problem that current code is sending SIGILL in 
all cases.

Gleb.
--
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/