Dave Martin writes:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The other thing we should do is to get rid of the stupid padding.
>> Right now "struct siginfo" is pointlessly padded to 128 bytes. That is
>> completely insane, when it's always just zero in the
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:16:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
> The other thing we should do is to get rid of the stupid padding.
> Right now "struct siginfo" is pointlessly padded to 128 bytes. That is
> completely insane, when it's always just zero in the kernel.
Agreed, inside the ker
Linus Torvalds writes:
> (
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
[snip bit about wanting what is effectively force_sig_fault instead of
clear_siginfo everywhere]
> The other thing we should do is to get rid of the stupid padding.
> Right now "struct siginfo" is pointl
Linus Torvalds writes:
> (
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
>>
>> Would you consider the patchset below for -rc2?
>
> Ugh.
The point of this series is to squash the potential for regressions even
from the weird broken code that fills in fields for si_code 0 that d
(
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
>
> Would you consider the patchset below for -rc2?
Ugh.
I have an irrational dislike of "clear_siginfo()". It's a nasty broken
interface, which just mis-spells "memset()", and makes it non-obvious
that you could clear it other ways to
Linus,
Would you consider the patchset below for -rc2?
Dealing with the aliases of SI_USER has been a challenge as we have had
a b0rked ABI in some cases since 2.5.
So far no one except myself has suggested that changing the si_code of
from 0 to something else for those problematic aliases of S
