Re: [PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2019-07-30 Thread Will Deacon
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:23:02PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2018-07-25 14:45, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite > > when running under a 64-bit kernel. They tracked this down to sigaltstack(2) > > enforcing

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2019-07-29 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On 2018-07-25 14:45, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi all, > > The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite > when running under a 64-bit kernel. They tracked this down to sigaltstack(2) > enforcing the alternative signal stack to be at least SIGMINSTKSZ bytes, > which is

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-10-01 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:18:11PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >This is a resend of: > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > > > >now based on 4.19-rc2. > > > >The Debian

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-10-01 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:18:11PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >This is a resend of: > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > > > >now based on 4.19-rc2. > > > >The Debian

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-28 Thread Steve McIntyre
[ Re-sending without the corporate footer garbage... ] On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >Hi all, > >This is a resend of: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > >now based on 4.19-rc2. > >The Debian folks have observed a

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-28 Thread Steve McIntyre
[ Re-sending without the corporate footer garbage... ] On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >Hi all, > >This is a resend of: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > >now based on 4.19-rc2. > >The Debian folks have observed a

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-26 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >Hi all, > >This is a resend of: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > >now based on 4.19-rc2. > >The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite >when running under

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-26 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >Hi all, > >This is a resend of: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > >now based on 4.19-rc2. > >The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite >when running under

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-12 Thread Will Deacon
Hi all, [+ more people from get_maintainers.pl] On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > This is a resend of: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > > now based on 4.19-rc2. > > The Debian folks have observed a failure in the

Re: [RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-12 Thread Will Deacon
Hi all, [+ more people from get_maintainers.pl] On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 03:34:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > This is a resend of: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html > > now based on 4.19-rc2. > > The Debian folks have observed a failure in the

[RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-05 Thread Will Deacon
Hi all, This is a resend of: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html now based on 4.19-rc2. The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite when running under a 64-bit kernel. They tracked this down to sigaltstack(2) enforcing

[RESEND PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-09-05 Thread Will Deacon
Hi all, This is a resend of: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-July/593559.html now based on 4.19-rc2. The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite when running under a 64-bit kernel. They tracked this down to sigaltstack(2) enforcing

[PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-07-25 Thread Will Deacon
Hi all, The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite when running under a 64-bit kernel. They tracked this down to sigaltstack(2) enforcing the alternative signal stack to be at least SIGMINSTKSZ bytes, which is higher for native arm64 tasks than compat 32-bit tasks.

[PATCH 0/2] Don't use SIGMINSTKSZ when enforcing alternative signal stack size for compat tasks

2018-07-25 Thread Will Deacon
Hi all, The Debian folks have observed a failure in the 32-bit arm glibc testsuite when running under a 64-bit kernel. They tracked this down to sigaltstack(2) enforcing the alternative signal stack to be at least SIGMINSTKSZ bytes, which is higher for native arm64 tasks than compat 32-bit tasks.