Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflow check

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
>> * Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We need to check for stack overflow only when the signal is on stack. 
>>> So we can improve the patch "http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/27/101" as 
>>> following.
>> thanks, applied.
> 
> These patches change the behaviour of programs that longjmp out of a
> signal handler on an alternate stack, don't they?
> 
> I'm interested to know what gave you confidence that changing that
> behaviour won't break existing working programs.
> 

Shouldn't such programs use sigsetjmp/siglongjmp, which should reset the 
signal stack state?

	-hpa