Re: avr32: handle_signal() bug?
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Wed Aug 03 2011 - 09:11:11 EST
On 08/03, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> * Block the signal if we were unsuccessful.
> */
> if (ret != 0 || !(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER)) {
> spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> sigorsets(¤t->blocked, ¤t->blocked,
> &ka->sa.sa_mask);
> sigaddset(¤t->blocked, sig);
> recalc_sigpending();
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> }
Agreed, this looks "obviously wrong". We should block the !SA_NODEFER
signal it was delivered.
> Is there some intricacy of the avr32 architecture that I'm missing here?
same question here ;)
> --- a/arch/avr32/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/avr32/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -238,22 +238,21 @@ handle_signal(unsigned long sig, struct k_sigaction *ka, siginfo_t *info,
> */
> ret |= !valid_user_regs(regs);
>
> + if (ret != 0) {
> + force_sigsegv(sig, current);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> /*
> - * Block the signal if we were unsuccessful.
> + * Block the signal if we were successful.
> */
> - if (ret != 0 || !(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER)) {
> - spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> - sigorsets(¤t->blocked, ¤t->blocked,
> - &ka->sa.sa_mask);
> + spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> + sigorsets(¤t->blocked, ¤t->blocked,
> + &ka->sa.sa_mask);
> + if (!(ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_NODEFER))
> sigaddset(¤t->blocked, sig);
> - recalc_sigpending();
> - spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> - }
> -
> - if (ret == 0)
> - return;
> -
> - force_sigsegv(sig, current);
> + recalc_sigpending();
> + spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> }
I think this is correct.
Oleg.
--
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/