linux-kernel - Re: hexagon: signal handling bugs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHrUA35E=0bfbe=4NS5FUcGqSGv-OEhP_6DM4+K4E1or9FyhdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:18:07 -0600
From:	Linas Vepstas <linasvepstas@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: hexagon: signal handling bugs

On 11 February 2012 17:27, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>        1) unless I'm seriously misreading hexagon vm_entry.S, once we'd
> called do_notify_resume, we do *not* recheck if there's more work to
> be done.

>        2) sigreturn should *NOT* be restartable at all, or you'll get
....

Is there an architecture that "does this best"?  I (re-)wrote a
significant part of the hexagon sig-handling code, and I did it via
"surgical hacking": by reading the code for 4-6 other arches, and
trying to pick out the "best practices" of each.  But its easy to
build a Frankenstein when using body parts from mis-matched places, so
perhaps many of these mistakes were mine...

Perhaps its desirable to modify most/all architectures, so as to evoke
more commonality?  Some of the other, more minor arches sure did look
incomplete to me...

-- Linas
--
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/