From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: situation with signals Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:33:23 +0200 Message-ID: <201009241533.23331.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20100923221141.GK19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:64800 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932096Ab0IXNd2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:33:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100923221141.GK19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Al Viro Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 24 September 2010, Al Viro wrote: > There are several interesting issues in arch/*/*/*signal* (besides > shoggoths starting to show up when one reads that code) and I'd been crawling > through that area for the last few weeks. Here are more or less common > issues; there are really arch-specific bugs (e.g. roothole on frv that > used to allow reading kernel memory by setting the right sa_handler), but > that's a separate story. I still plan to make a counterpart to the asm-generic headers with an example architecture that new architectures can copy from. Signal handling is one of the areas that I have very limited understanding of. Did you encounter any architecture that basically gets signal handling right and that can serve as a positive example to others? arch/tile/kernel/signal.c was the last one that got merged and I tried to direct the maintainer in the right direction as much as I could, but there are a lot of things I didn't know about. Arnd