From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] consider stack access while checking for alternate signal stack
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091020211116.2B76F81A3@magilla.sf.frob.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior's message of Monday, 19 October 2009 21:30:58 +0200 <20091019193058.GA29613@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc>
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> >+ return sp >= current->sas_ss_sp &&
> >+ sp - current->sas_ss_sp < current->sas_ss_size;
>
> CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP is wrong: If your stack grows up and sp ==
> sas_ss_sp + size than you are using the last entry in your sig stack
> which will be not recognized correctly.
+ sp - current->sas_ss_sp <= current->sas_ss_size;
then?
> The case where sp == sas_ss_sp
> is also not detected correctly but this should not happen in real life.
So you say that sp==sas_ss_sp should not be considered "on the sig stack"?
> That is the PRE case which is the only relevant since we don't have any
> POST architectures. The check here produces the same results as my
> variant so it is okay :)
> So you prefer the smaller patch with comments around it?
Yes, I think it is far clearer and easier to read than what you posted.
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-20 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-18 19:12 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2009-10-19 4:09 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2009-10-19 7:58 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2009-10-19 9:26 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2009-10-19 7:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-19 8:02 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2009-10-19 18:08 ` Roland McGrath
2009-10-19 19:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2009-10-20 21:11 ` Roland McGrath [this message]
2009-10-21 8:28 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2009-10-25 14:37 ` [PATCH v2] consider the kind of stack incrementation " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2009-11-04 17:27 ` [tip:core/signal] signal: Fix alternate signal stack check tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091020211116.2B76F81A3@magilla.sf.frob.com \
--to=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hskinnemoen@atmel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=sebastian@breakpoint.cc \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®