Re: sigaltstack fun

[David Miller]

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:45:43 -1000

> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Linus, do you have any objections to the above?  FWIW, I've a tentative
>> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
>> it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't
>> dealt with the biarch side of things yet...
> 
> I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
> messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
> (because it's generally not used by normal code and even code that
> uses it tends to use it only for very uncommon events). So forcing all
> the sigaltstack code into generic code and at least avoiding the
> "different architectures can get things subtly - or not so subtly -
> wrong in different ways" sounds like a good thing.

FWIW, if folks are looking for testcases there are a small number in
glibc, a quick grep shows:

nptl/tst-cancel20.c
nptl/tst-cancel21.c
nptl/tst-signal6.c
debug/tst-longjmp_chk2.c

LTP probably has a bunch too.
--
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/