lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:10:08 +0100 James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com> wrote:

> On 22/06/13 20:09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
> >> I am proposing that we just reduce the number of usable signals such
> >> that existing libc status checking macros/functions don't change in any
> >> way.
> >
> > And I fully agree! Absolutely, sorry for confusion.
> >
> >
> > What I tried to say, _if_ we change the ABI instead, lets make this
> > change sane.
>
> I agree that this approach isn't very nice (I was really just trying to
> explore the options) and reducing the number of signals is nicer. But is
> anybody here confident enough that the number of signals changing under
> the feet of existing binaries/libc won't actually break anything real?
> I.e. anything trying to use SIGRTMAX() to get a lower priority signal.

Meanwhile, unprivileged users can make a MIPS kernel go BUG.

How much of a problem is this? Obviously less of a problem with MIPS
than it would be with some other CPU types, but I'd imagine it's still
awkward in some environments.

If this _is_ considered a problem, can we think of some nasty little
hack which at least makes the effects less damaging, which we can also
put into -stable kernels?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-26 02:21    [W:0.119 / U:0.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site