public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bodo Stroesser <bstroesser@fujitsu-siemens.com>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Again: UML on s390 (31Bit)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:06:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4284D0A0.5010809@fujitsu-siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF004E24A7.29043C55-ONC1257000.0056CCB5-C1257000.00570853@de.ibm.com>

Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>>Each time when the kernel is entered again and a signal is pending,
>>do_signal() will be called on return to user with regs->trap setup
>>freshly. So, I still believe the patch doesn't have *any* effect.
> 
> 
> Oh, the patch does have an effect for the debugger. If the debugger
> stopped on the sys_sig_return system call and does e.g. an inferior
> function call, then the kernel might want to restart a system call
> that isn't there because the debugger did a "jump" but could not
> change regs->trap.

AFAICS, it not even has an effect for the debugger.

do_signal() is the only routine, that examines regs->trap. On each
kernel-entry, regs->trap is set freshly. What will be the effect of
changing it *after* it had been examined?

The only exceptions are sys_(rt_)sigsuspend. Here do_signal() might
be called twice, while *and* after processing the syscall. But even
here the patch has no effect, as regs->gprs[2] contains -EINTR, if
so_signal is called by sys_(rt_)sigreturn.

Regards
	Bodo

> 
> blue skies,
>    Martin
> 
> Martin Schwidefsky
> Linux for zSeries Development & Services
> IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2005-05-13 16:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-05-04 21:33 Again: UML on s390 (31Bit) Ulrich Weigand
2005-05-06 13:04 ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-05-13 15:07   ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-05-13 15:26     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-05-13 15:37       ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-05-13 15:40         ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-05-13 15:45           ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-05-13 15:50             ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-05-13 16:06               ` Bodo Stroesser [this message]
2005-05-20 10:09     ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-05-31 16:57       ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-06-01 10:50         ` Bodo Stroesser
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-05-04 16:04 Martin Schwidefsky
2005-05-04 19:02 ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-04-27 20:21 Bodo Stroesser
2005-04-28  8:36 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-04-28  9:54   ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-04-28 13:03     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-04-28 13:41       ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-04-28 15:27         ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-04-28 18:50           ` Bodo Stroesser
2005-04-29 11:47             ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-04-29 12:47               ` Bodo Stroesser

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=4284D0A0.5010809@fujitsu-siemens.com \
    --to=bstroesser@fujitsu-siemens.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox