From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:16:07 +0000 From: Luis Henriques To: PaX Team Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com, Emese Revfy , Al Viro , Oleg Nesterov , "Eric W. Biederman" , Serge Hallyn , Julien Tinnes , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 150/150] kernel/signal.c: use __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER instead of SA_RESTORER Message-ID: <20130327151607.GA17221@hercules> References: <515307E5.8858.4BC860B3@pageexec.freemail.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <515307E5.8858.4BC860B3@pageexec.freemail.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0100, PaX Team wrote: > sorry if you got this twice, had smtpd problems... > > On 26 Mar 2013 at 15:20, Luis Henriques wrote: > > > 3.5.7.9 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Andrew Morton > > > > commit 522cff142d7d2f9230839c9e1f21a4d8bcc22a4a upstream. > > > > __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER is the preferred conditional for use in 3.9 and > > later kernels, per Kees. > > does __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER exist in the 3.5 stable series at all? i thought it > was new to 3.9... You're right, __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER has been added on 3.9 only. However, due to build failures for some archs (mips, ia64, ...) using the upstream 2ca39528c01a933f6689cd6505ce65bd6d68a530 commit, Ben Hutchings has cooked a patch that adds this definition to stable series. This patch is currently under review for the 3.5 kernel: [PATCH 149/150] signal: Define __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER so we know whether to clear sa_restorer Cheers, -- Luis