Re: [uml-devel] [REVIEW][PATCH 19/22] signal/um: Use force_sig_fault in relay_signal.

Martin Pärtel writes: > And once more in plain text.. > > On 25 April 2018 at 01:00, Martin Pärtel wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> This was ages ago, but from what I remember... >> >>> >>> Having a second look I really don't understand what

Re: [uml-devel] [REVIEW][PATCH 19/22] signal/um: Use force_sig_fault in relay_signal.

Sigh I should have Cc'd Martin Partel as well as this bit is his original code. Anton Ivanov writes: > Hi Richard, > > There was a post to uml-devel during the days when the sourceforge mailing > list > was working in random drop mode which claimed that "this

Re: [uml-devel] [REVIEW][PATCH 19/22] signal/um: Use force_sig_fault in relay_signal.

Hi Richard, There was a post to uml-devel during the days when the sourceforge mailing list was working in random drop mode which claimed that "this fixes the arm build". I have not kept it locally and I do not see it the archive (I do not see a few other posts there either - including some

Re: [uml-devel] [REVIEW][PATCH 19/22] signal/um: Use force_sig_fault in relay_signal.

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Anton Ivanov wrote: > > On 04/20/18 15:38, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Today user mode linux only works on x86 and x86_64 and this allows >> simplifications of relay_signal. > > > I believe someone recently fixed the ARM port. I

Re: [uml-devel] [REVIEW][PATCH 19/22] signal/um: Use force_sig_fault in relay_signal.

On 04/20/18 15:38, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Today user mode linux only works on x86 and x86_64 and this allows simplifications of relay_signal. I believe someone recently fixed the ARM port. I have not had the time to try the fixes though. I have added the new list we are migrating to the

[uml-devel] [REVIEW][PATCH 19/22] signal/um: Use force_sig_fault in relay_signal.

Today user mode linux only works on x86 and x86_64 and this allows simplifications of relay_signal. - x86 always set si_errno to 0 in fault handlers. - x86 does not implement si_trapno. - Only si_codes between SI_USER and SI_KERNEL have a fault address. Therefore warn if si_errno is set (it