Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel/signal.c: avoid BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)

[James Hogan]

On 29 May 2013 18:36, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/29, David Daney wrote:
>>
>> On 05/29/2013 10:01 AM, James Hogan wrote:
>>> MIPS has 128 signals, the highest of which has the number 128. The
>>
>> I wonder if we should change the ABI and reduce the number of signals to
>> 127 instead of this patch.
>
> Same thoughts...

I'll give it a try. I wouldn't have thought it'd break anything, but
you never know. glibc (incorrectly) sets [__]SIGRTMAX to 127 already.
On the other hand uClibc sets it to 128, so anything built against
uClibc that uses signals SIGRTMAX-n (where n may be 0) or uses an
excessive number of rt signals starting from SIGRTMIN (sounds
unlikely) could well need an updated uClibc (or a full rebuild if it's
crazy enough to use __SIGRTMAX).

>>> @@ -2366,8 +2366,12 @@ relock:
>>>
>>>              /*
>>>               * Death signals, no core dump.
>>> +             *
>>> +             * MIPS has a signal number 128 which clashes with the core dump
>>> +             * bit. If this was the signal we still want to report a valid
>>> +             * exit code, so round it down to 127.
>>>               */
>>> -            do_group_exit(info->si_signo);
>>> +            do_group_exit(min(info->si_signo, 127));
>
> This avoids BUG_ON() but obviously fools WIFSIGNALED(), doesn't look
> very nice.

Agreed.

Cheers
James
--
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/