[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121118.140332.1273544560009594278.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:03:32 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, monstr@...str.eu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sigaltstack fun
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:45:43 -1000
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
>> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
>> it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't
>> dealt with the biarch side of things yet...
>
> I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
> messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
> (because it's generally not used by normal code and even code that
> uses it tends to use it only for very uncommon events). So forcing all
> the sigaltstack code into generic code and at least avoiding the
> "different architectures can get things subtly - or not so subtly -
> wrong in different ways" sounds like a good thing.
FWIW, if folks are looking for testcases there are a small number in
glibc, a quick grep shows:
nptl/tst-cancel20.c
nptl/tst-cancel21.c
nptl/tst-signal6.c
debug/tst-longjmp_chk2.c
LTP probably has a bunch too.
--
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