Re: Executing shell code on the signal stack, or why is this is a bad idea

On 6/6/13 5:29 AM, Lionel Cons wrote: > Forwarding an interesting posting from Roland Mainz who did an > investigation why signal trap processing in ksh93, bash and dash is > currently not reliable. As I said in a previous message, I have done considerable work between bash-4.2 and bash-4.3 to mov

Re: Executing shell code on the signal stack, or why is this is a bad idea

On 6/6/13 5:31 AM, Lionel Cons wrote: > On 6 June 2013 11:29, Lionel Cons wrote: >> Forwarding an interesting posting from Roland Mainz who did an >> investigation why signal trap processing in ksh93, bash and dash is >> currently not reliable. >> >> Lionel >> > > PS: malloc() from AT&T libast, u

Re: Executing shell code on the signal stack, or why is this is a bad idea

On 6 June 2013 11:29, Lionel Cons wrote: > Forwarding an interesting posting from Roland Mainz who did an > investigation why signal trap processing in ksh93, bash and dash is > currently not reliable. > > Lionel > PS: malloc() from AT&T libast, used by ksh93, is async signal safe. Unless bash's

Executing shell code on the signal stack, or why is this is a bad idea

Forwarding an interesting posting from Roland Mainz who did an investigation why signal trap processing in ksh93, bash and dash is currently not reliable. Lionel -- Forwarded message -- From: Roland Mainz Date: 3 June 2013 15:22 Subject: Re: [ast-developers] Realtime signal issue