Re: [PATCH] consider stack access while checking for alternate signal stack

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>]

* Roland McGrath | 2009-10-20 14:11:16 [-0700]:

>> >+#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?

+		sp - current->sas_ss_sp < current->sas_ss_size;
That (the old code) is correct on POST_* architectures. However we don't
have any.

>> 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"?
Exactly. Because if you have a PRE_* architecture than you first
increment/decrement the stack and than store the value.
So if sp == sas_ss_sp than your next store on the stack will be just
below the begin of your 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.
Okay. This would bring us to:

-       return (sp - current->sas_ss_sp < current->sas_ss_size);
+       /* This considers PRE_DEC and PRE_INC architectures */
+       return sp > current->sas_ss_sp &&
+               sp - current->sas_ss_sp <= current->sas_ss_size;

And I throw my table away and put something else into patch's comment?

>
>Thanks,
>Roland

Sebastian