lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT] Sparc
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:53:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:08:53PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Um, no. ?You've *already* called get_signal_to_deliver(). ?There had been
> > > no SIGSEGV in sight. ?You happily went on to set a sigframe for e.g.
> > > SIGHUP, but ran out of stack. ?At that point you get force_sigsegv()
> > > from handle_signal(). ?_NOW_ you have a pending SIGSEGV
> >
> > Ahh. Ok. Different case from the one I thought you were worried about.
> > And yeah, I guess that one does require us to mess with the low-level
> > asm code (although I do wonder if we could not make the whole
> > do_notify_resume + reschedule code be generic C code - it's a lot of
> > duplicated subtle asm as it is).
>
> Worse than just that... Note that on sparc you need to deal with
> fault_in_user_windows(), which can also trigger signals.

Actually, I wonder why don't we do the following:
1) check wsaved first, do fault_in_user_windows() if needed (and probably do
Something Cruel(tm) if we fail copy_to_user() in there)
2) in a loop check if we need to reschedule / if we need to handle signals
3) don't bother with wsaved checks in setup_frame() variants at all -
wsaved can't grow back at that point; we also can use flush_user_windows()
instead of full synchronize_user_stack() in there.

It's definitely a separate patch, but it looks like it might be worth
doing... Comments?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-22 22:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans