[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF8ieYU2ThME1Q3u6xOp0sVOh-dPep-874TDY-=-q9E3OiSQAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 10:20:30 -0700
From: HÃ¥vard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: avr32: handle_signal() bug?
Hi Matt,
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org> wrote:
> That doesn't look correct to me. Now, if we were unsuccessful in setting
> up a signal frame, say, ret == -EFAULT, do we really want to block the
> signal or any of the signals in the handler mask?
I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question :-)
> Is there some intricacy of the avr32 architecture that I'm missing here?
> It looks to me like this code was copied from the arm implementation
> from years ago before commit a6c61e9dfdd0 ("[ARM] 3168/1: Update ARM
> signal delivery and masking").
I don't think there are any avr32-specific intricacies to consider
here, and ARM was indeed one of the architectures I looked at when
writing the signal handling code, so I probably picked up that bug
from there.
> How about this?
Looks good to me. I'm not sure how to test it though...I can try to
build a kernel, run it on my board and see if it explodes, but I
suspect this bug is a lot more subtle than that.
Havard
--
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