linux-kernel - Re: sigaltstack fun

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:	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:10:02 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, monstr@...str.eu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sigaltstack fun

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> 
> Applied, thanks.

Hmm...  There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
we *do* have sa_restorer in struct sigaction and struct old_sigaction,
but it's not used for anything whatsoever.  There's also a separately
passed restorer pointer for rt_sigaction() and *that* is used instead,
but not reported via *oact.

What's the reason for that weirdness?  I understand why we do that on
alpha (we have no sa_restorer in struct sigaction we'd inherited from
OSF/1), but sparc always had perfectly normal sigaction->sa_restorer
field all along - even for old sigaction(2)...
--
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/