On 11/07, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Amanieu d'Antras <aman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One issue that isn't resolved in this series is sending signals between a
> > 32-bit
> > process and 64-bit process. Sending a si_int will work correctly, but a
> > si_ptr
> > value will likely get corrupted due to the different layouts of the 32-bit
> > and
> > 64-bit siginfo_t structures.
>
> This is so screwed up it's not even funny.
Agreed,
> A 64-bit big-endian compat calls rt_sigqueueinfo. It passes in (among
> other things) a sigval_t. The kernel can choose to interpret it
I always thought that the kernel should not interpret it at all. And indeed,
copy_siginfo_to_user() does
if (from->si_code < 0)
return __copy_to_user(to, from, sizeof(siginfo_t))
probably copy_siginfo_to_user32() should do something similar, at least
it should not truncate ->si_code it it is less than zero.
Not sure what signalfd_copyinfo() should do.
But perhaps I was wrong, I failed to find man sigqueueinfo, and man
sigqueue() documents that it passes sigval_t.
> BTW, x86 has its own set of screwups here. Somehow cr2 and error_code
> ended up as part of ucontext instead of siginfo, which makes
> absolutely no sense to me and bloats task_struct.
Yes, and probably ->ip should have been the part of siginfo too. Say,
if you get SIGBUS you can't trust sc->ip if another signal was dequeued
before SIGBUS, in this case sc->ip will point to the handler of that
another signal. That is why we have SYNCHRONOUS_MASK and it helps, but
still this doesn't look nice.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
