Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:27:21 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflow check |
| |
* Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> 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.
ok, i've removed these patches from x86.git#testing for now:
Subject: x86: improve the signal stack overflow logic, 32-bit Subject: x86: add a signal stack overflow check, 64-bit Subject: x86: add signal stack overflow check, 32-bit
and will wait for a resubmission and an Ack from Roland.
Ingo
| |