Good news - under 2.2.2 it does not seem to corrupt memory.
Bad news - it may well be that it still does corrupt memory but in a way
not-perceivable by a mere mortal.
It still seems worth fixing it as Mark described based on Single UNIX v2
comments, i.e. forcing default handling of SIGSEGV (while remaining
entirely in kernel space).
So, to summarize - under 2.2.2UP all I see when we overflow stack by
recursive invocation of SIGSEGV handler is that a process is busy in
kernel but still responsive to SIGINT and other signals.
Regards,
Tigran.
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> My #0.02 worth - I agree with Mark's finding in the Single UNIX v2 spec.
> It seems logical and reasonable. In fact, I think essentially, that was
> what Mark suggested in our chat here even before he checked the specs,
> (which suggests that specs *are* written by human beings with some common
> sense :) ).
>
> I did not have time to try it under 2.2.2 as Ingo suggested - will try it
> this evening probably. Also, Pavel Machek is reporting that he sees no
> problem under 2.2.2UP so the actual corruption is either something
> non-trivial or fixed in 2.2.2.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/