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]
Message-ID: <20180801074903.GG16221@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Wed, 1 Aug 2018 02:49:03 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muriloo@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>,
        "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@...ilva.org>,
        Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Cyril Bur <cyrilbur@...il.com>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] powerpc/traps: Print signal name for unhandled signals

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 12:03:50AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 08:37 +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> > Le 31/07/2018 à 16:50, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo a écrit :
> > I would suggest to instead use a function like this:
> > 
> > static const char *signame(int signr)
> > {
> > 	if (signr == SIGBUS)
> > 		return "bus error";
> > 	if (signr == SIGFPE)
> > 		return "floating point exception";
> > 	if (signr == SIGILL)
> > 		return "illegal instruction";
> > 	if (signr == SIGILL)
> > 		return "segfault";
> > 	if (signr == SIGTRAP)
> > 		return "unhandled trap";
> > 	return "unknown signal";
> > }
> 
> trivia:
> 
> Unless the if tests are ordered most to least likely,
> perhaps it would be better to use a switch/case and
> let the compiler decide.

That would also show there are two entries for SIGILL (here and in the
original patch), one of them very wrong.

Check the table with psignal or something?


Segher

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ