From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:15:44 +
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
>> > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>> >
>> > Applied, thanks.
>>
>> Hmm... There's somet
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:10:02 +
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
>> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>>
>> Applied, thanks.
>
> Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
> we *do* have sa_re
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
> >
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
> we *do* hav
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>
> Applied, thanks.
Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
we *do* have sa_restorer in struct sigaction and struct old_sigaction,
but it's not
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:45:43AM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
> > patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
> > it + stuff currently in s
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:48:59PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:59:21 +
>
> > Might be a good idea to start adding tests/* in the kernel tree,
> > perhaps?
>
> I've always been a strong advocate of this idea.
I would also love to see this happen.
t
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:35:07 +
> sparc64: not any error from do_sigaltstack() should fail rt_sigreturn()
>
> If a signal handler is executed on altstack and another signal comes,
> we will end up with rt_sigreturn() on return from the second handler
> getting -EPERM from do_
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:30:05PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > Er... So which tree should that go through? sparc or signal? There's
> > a similar microblaze patch and a few more of the "do_sigaltstack() takes
> > userland pointer" variety, so I can put together a pile in
> > signal.git#for-li
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:10:13 +
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:18:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Al Viro
>> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
>>
>> > Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
>> > rid of those segfaults and converting t
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:18:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
>
> > Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
> > rid of those segfaults and converting to usual semantics here...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>
From: Al Viro
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
> Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
> rid of those segfaults and converting to usual semantics here...
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro
Yep, looks fine:
Acked-by: David S. Miller
--
To unsubscribe from this list
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:59:21PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:32PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
> > > messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
> > > (because it's general
From: Al Viro
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:59:21 +
> Might be a good idea to start adding tests/* in the kernel tree,
> perhaps?
I've always been a strong advocate of this idea.
I think if someone just did the work to get things going, it would
just pick up it's own momentum and get merged qui
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:32PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
> > messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
> > (because it's generally not used by normal code and even code that
> > uses it tends t
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:45:43 -1000
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>> Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
>> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
>> it + stuff currently in signal.g
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
> it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't
> dealt with the biarch sid
16 matches
Mail list logo
