[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMD8JhxzzCCjo_OLs8wS7ggOh4NqdxeRAGhcvuEJSUZZLO6NDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 02:05:44 +0300
From: Martin Pärtel <martin.partel@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...-begemot.co.uk>,
Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [REVIEW][PATCH 19/22] signal/um: Use force_sig_fault
in relay_signal.
>
> Then my analysis is correct that you simply missed filtering out the
> si codes that are not signal specific and do not use the fault layout
> in struct siginfo.
> ...
> I would say that you really need a
> white-list of si_codes that whose use of struct siginfo that you know.
> Otherwise you could get into the same problem of under or over copying
> data.
>
I think that's correct, but I'm not super familiar with either UML or
signal handling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists