On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:49:47PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:59:37PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Setting si_code to 0 results in a userspace seeing an si_code of 0.
> > This is the same si_code as SI_USER. Posix and common sense requires
> > that S
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:49:47PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:59:37PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Setting si_code to 0 results in a userspace seeing an si_code of 0.
> > This is the same si_code as SI_USER. Posix and common sense requires
> > that S
Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:59:37PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Setting si_code to 0 results in a userspace seeing an si_code of 0.
>> This is the same si_code as SI_USER. Posix and common sense requires
>> that SI_USER not be a signal specific si_code.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:59:37PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Setting si_code to 0 results in a userspace seeing an si_code of 0.
> This is the same si_code as SI_USER. Posix and common sense requires
> that SI_USER not be a signal specific si_code. As such this use of 0
> for the si_code
Setting si_code to 0 results in a userspace seeing an si_code of 0.
This is the same si_code as SI_USER. Posix and common sense requires
that SI_USER not be a signal specific si_code. As such this use of 0
for the si_code is a pretty horribly broken ABI.
Further use of si_code == 0 guaranteed th
5 matches
Mail list logo
