* Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I spent some time read you mail carefully and dig into the code again. > > > > And yes, you are right. It's possible that SA_ONSTACK has been cleared > > before the second signal on the same stack comes. > > It's not necessary for SA_ONSTACK to have "been cleared", by which I > assume you mean a sigaction call with SA_ONSTACK not set in sa_flags. > That is indeed possible, but it's not the only case your patch broke. > It can just be a different signal whose sigaction never had > SA_ONSTACK, when you are still on the signal stack from an earlier > signal that did have SA_ONSTACK. > > > So this patch is wrong :( . I will revise the other 4 patches. > > For 2 and 3, I would rather just wait until we unify signal.c anyway.
ok, i've removed these patches from x86.git#testing for now: Subject: x86: improve the signal stack overflow logic, 32-bit Subject: x86: add a signal stack overflow check, 64-bit Subject: x86: add signal stack overflow check, 32-bit and will wait for a resubmission and an Ack from Roland. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/