okay, now I see that this lacks a lot of "presentation". This is a patch to fix a problem on signal masks, and solves a certain problem when the client is "playing the game" of sigsegv mask/unmask. I will explain it a little more on a better patch. This should have been explained on the 00/00 cover. And, moreover, this is kinda the v2 of a single-mail patch.
Before sending a v2, is there something more that I should correct? And one netiquete question, test-breaking code should be in the description (cover, 00/00)? On a next post in the same thread? Another thread? On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Alex Barcelo <abarc...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: > The first patch creates a sigprocmask wrapper on signal.c for its use in > syscall.c > > The second patch changes the wrapper to protect sigsegv bit on the signal > mask. > > Alex Barcelo (2): > signal: added a wrapper for sigprocmask function > signal: sigsegv protection on do_sigprocmask > > linux-user/qemu.h | 1 + > linux-user/signal.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > linux-user/syscall.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.5.4 >
