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
>
next prev parent 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