> Tony / Borislav, do we have tests for the machine check code that could
> have caught this?
If I had built one of my recovery test programs as a 32-byte binary instead of
native 64-bit I might have noticed (I only print the lsb field ... which would
have been garbage on the stack, maybe I'd ha
On 05/20/2016 12:05 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> We've added a few features to siginfo over the past few years and
>> neglected to add them to arch/x86/kernel/signal_compat.c:
>>
>>1. The si_addr_lsb used in SIGBUS's sent for machine checks
>>2. The upper/lower bounds for MPX SIGSEGV faults
>>
* Dave Hansen wrote:
> Sending this out early so folks can have a look. I haven't let
> it run through a full set of tests, so buyer beware, but it would
> have a hard time hurting anything other than the already-broken
> 32-bit compat signal code.
>
> ---
>
> From: Dave Hansen
>
> The 32-b
Sending this out early so folks can have a look. I haven't let
it run through a full set of tests, so buyer beware, but it would
have a hard time hurting anything other than the already-broken
32-bit compat signal code.
---
From: Dave Hansen
The 32-bit siginfo is a different binary format tha
4 matches
Mail list logo
