On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 03:12:30PM -0800, Shentino wrote: > > + send_sig(SIGSEGV, current, 0); > > This might be a stupid miscue on my part, but shouldn't it be > force_sig instead of send_sig? > > I've got this crazy hunch that having SEGV masked might muck something up.
How would you manage to have it masked at that point? setup_new_exec() is inevitable after success of flush_old_exec() and it will do flush_signal_handlers() for us. And yes, flush_old_exec() and setup_new_exec() ought to be merged; the problem with that is the stuff done between those two - setting personality, plus playing with thread flags if needed. Unfortunately, there are non-obvious differences between architectures, so that would have to be hashed out on linux-arch. Doesn't affect the point above, though... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
