From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:15:44 +
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
>> > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>> >
>> > Applied, thanks.
>>
>> Hmm... There's
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:10:02 +
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
>> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>>
>> Applied, thanks.
>
> Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
> we *do* have
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:10:02 +
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Applied, thanks.
Hmm... There's something odd going on with
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:15:44 +
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Applied,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
> >
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
> we *do*
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>
> Applied, thanks.
Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
we *do* have sa_restorer in struct sigaction and struct old_sigaction,
but it's not
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Applied, thanks.
Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
we *do* have sa_restorer in struct sigaction and struct
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:10:02AM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:27:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Applied, thanks.
Hmm... There's something odd going on with {rt_,}sigaction on sparc -
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:45:43AM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
> > patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
> > it + stuff currently in
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:45:43AM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
it + stuff
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:48:59PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:59:21 +
>
> > Might be a good idea to start adding tests/* in the kernel tree,
> > perhaps?
>
> I've always been a strong advocate of this idea.
I would also love to see this happen.
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:35:07 +
> sparc64: not any error from do_sigaltstack() should fail rt_sigreturn()
>
> If a signal handler is executed on altstack and another signal comes,
> we will end up with rt_sigreturn() on return from the second handler
> getting -EPERM from
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:30:05PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > Er... So which tree should that go through? sparc or signal? There's
> > a similar microblaze patch and a few more of the "do_sigaltstack() takes
> > userland pointer" variety, so I can put together a pile in
> >
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:10:13 +
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:18:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Al Viro
>> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
>>
>> > Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
>> > rid of those segfaults and converting
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:18:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
>
> > Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
> > rid of those segfaults and converting to usual semantics here...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Al Viro
>
From: Al Viro
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
> Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
> rid of those segfaults and converting to usual semantics here...
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro
Yep, looks fine:
Acked-by: David S. Miller
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:59:21PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:32PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > > I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
> > > messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
> > > (because it's
From: Al Viro
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:59:21 +
> Might be a good idea to start adding tests/* in the kernel tree,
> perhaps?
I've always been a strong advocate of this idea.
I think if someone just did the work to get things going, it would
just pick up it's own momentum and get merged
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:32PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
> > messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
> > (because it's generally not used by normal code and even code that
> > uses it tends
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:45:43 -1000
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>> Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
>> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
>> it + stuff currently in
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
> it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't
> dealt with the biarch
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't
dealt
From: Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:45:43 -1000
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle);
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:32PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
(because it's generally not used by normal code and even code that
uses it tends to use
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:59:21 +
Might be a good idea to start adding tests/* in the kernel tree,
perhaps?
I've always been a strong advocate of this idea.
I think if someone just did the work to get things going, it would
just pick up it's own
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:59:21PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:32PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
(because it's generally not
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
rid of those segfaults and converting to usual semantics here...
Signed-off-by: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Yep, looks fine:
Acked-by: David
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:18:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
rid of those segfaults and converting to usual semantics here...
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 01:10:13 +
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:18:33PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:02:53 +
Are you OK with the patch below? Should be the minimal fix, getting
rid
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:30:05PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
Er... So which tree should that go through? sparc or signal? There's
a similar microblaze patch and a few more of the do_sigaltstack() takes
userland pointer variety, so I can put together a pile in
signal.git#for-linus, but
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 02:35:07 +
sparc64: not any error from do_sigaltstack() should fail rt_sigreturn()
If a signal handler is executed on altstack and another signal comes,
we will end up with rt_sigreturn() on return from the second handler
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:48:59PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:59:21 +
Might be a good idea to start adding tests/* in the kernel tree,
perhaps?
I've always been a strong advocate of this idea.
I would also love to see
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:59:25AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> Do you have set of tests which should run it?
>
>
> > 2) your definition of current_pt_regs() is an exact copy of on in
> > include/linux/ptrace.h; why is "microblaze: Define current_pt_regs"
> > needed at all? IOW, I'd rather
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:59:25AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
Do you have set of tests which should run it?
2) your definition of current_pt_regs() is an exact copy of on in
include/linux/ptrace.h; why is microblaze: Define current_pt_regs
needed at all? IOW, I'd rather added #include
34 matches
Mail list logo
