From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:10:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C80CF0.4070608@imgtec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130622190940.GA14150@redhat.com>
On 22/06/13 20:09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
>> I am proposing that we just reduce the number of usable signals such
>> that existing libc status checking macros/functions don't change in any
>> way.
>
> And I fully agree! Absolutely, sorry for confusion.
>
>
> What I tried to say, _if_ we change the ABI instead, lets make this
> change sane.
I agree that this approach isn't very nice (I was really just trying to
explore the options) and reducing the number of signals is nicer. But is
anybody here confident enough that the number of signals changing under
the feet of existing binaries/libc won't actually break anything real?
I.e. anything trying to use SIGRTMAX() to get a lower priority signal.
>
> To me this hack is not sane. And btw, the patch doesn't look complete.
> Say, wait_task_zombie() should do exitcode_to_sig() for ->si_status.
Ah yes, I didn't seen that.
Cheers
James
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:10:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C80CF0.4070608@imgtec.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20130624091008.-IGFSkUD0MPSFLtRpIMvRAVHxWy81-p7eYbI3dYsfT4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130622190940.GA14150@redhat.com>
On 22/06/13 20:09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
>> I am proposing that we just reduce the number of usable signals such
>> that existing libc status checking macros/functions don't change in any
>> way.
>
> And I fully agree! Absolutely, sorry for confusion.
>
>
> What I tried to say, _if_ we change the ABI instead, lets make this
> change sane.
I agree that this approach isn't very nice (I was really just trying to
explore the options) and reducing the number of signals is nicer. But is
anybody here confident enough that the number of signals changing under
the feet of existing binaries/libc won't actually break anything real?
I.e. anything trying to use SIGRTMAX() to get a lower priority signal.
>
> To me this hack is not sane. And btw, the patch doesn't look complete.
> Say, wait_task_zombie() should do exitcode_to_sig() for ->si_status.
Ah yes, I didn't seen that.
Cheers
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-24 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-21 13:39 [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS) James Hogan
2013-06-21 13:39 ` James Hogan
2013-06-21 15:59 ` David Daney
2013-06-21 16:12 ` Ralf Baechle
2013-06-21 20:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-21 20:45 ` David Daney
2013-06-21 20:45 ` David Daney
2013-06-22 19:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-24 9:10 ` James Hogan [this message]
2013-06-24 9:10 ` James Hogan
2013-06-25 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2013-06-25 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2013-06-25 22:13 ` James Hogan
2013-06-26 11:07 ` James Hogan
2013-06-26 11:07 ` James Hogan
2013-06-26 11:07 ` James Hogan
2013-06-26 16:01 ` Ralf Baechle
2013-06-26 16:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-26 16:59 ` Ralf Baechle
2013-06-26 17:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-28 12:07 ` James Hogan
2013-06-28 12:07 ` James Hogan
2013-06-28 17:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-28 20:09 ` Denys Vlasenko
2013-06-24 9:26 ` James Hogan
2013-06-24 9:26 ` James Hogan
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=51C80CF0.4070608@imgtec.com \
--to=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
--cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.