From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:14:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:14:37 -0400 Received: from mail.loewe-komp.de ([62.156.155.230]:10501 "EHLO mail.loewe-komp.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 10:14:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3CF6342D.7060905@loewe-komp.de> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:16:13 +0200 From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=E4chtler?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Roman Zippel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: missing bit from signal patches In-Reply-To: <20020530220828.3c3192cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20020530232636.09d7b7eb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Roman, > > On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:46:20 +0200 (CEST) Roman Zippel wrote: > >>On Thu, 30 May 2002, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >> >>>Is the following a more ugly hack than yours? >>> >>Yes. :) >>The problem is copy_siginfo(), which wants to access struct siginfo. >>Copy the m68k version of siginfo.h and try to compile that. >> > > OK, sorry, brain fart :-) > > It seems that is an architecture defines its own siginfo_t then it must > also define its own copy_siginfo function (for now anyway). > > Try this ... > Why is that done so complicated? Why not just copy the struct over? When the kernel generates the signal, I hope the mem is zeroed and we copy it to user. When a user sends a signal, you want to prevent sending of arbitrary data? Why is that not done where the permission check happens? What do I miss?