Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflowcheck

[Harvey Harrison]

On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:49 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I spent some time read you mail carefully and dig into the code again.
> > 
> > And yes, you are right. It's possible that SA_ONSTACK has been cleared
> > before the second signal on the same stack comes.
> 
> It's not necessary for SA_ONSTACK to have "been cleared", by which I assume
> you mean a sigaction call with SA_ONSTACK not set in sa_flags.  That is
> indeed possible, but it's not the only case your patch broke.  It can just
> be a different signal whose sigaction never had SA_ONSTACK, when you are
> still on the signal stack from an earlier signal that did have SA_ONSTACK.
> 
> > So this patch is wrong  :( . I will revise the other 4 patches.
> 
> For 2 and 3, I would rather just wait until we unify signal.c anyway.
> 

I've been looking at that, at the same time a bunch of ia32/signal.c
looks like it can go away.

Harvey

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/