On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 05:26:30PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> That said, let me point again to the series I posted for review a year
> ago that attempts to make the restart logic more generic:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/23/80
>
> The entires patch series, which doesn't necessarily even
On 8 December 2012 08:44, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
>> What we need to guarantee is
>> * restarts do not happen on signals caught in interrupts or exceptions
>> * restarts do not happen on signals caught in sigreturn()
>> * restart should
On 8 December 2012 08:44, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
What we need to guarantee is
* restarts do not happen on signals caught in interrupts or exceptions
* restarts do not happen on signals caught in sigreturn()
*
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 05:26:30PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
That said, let me point again to the series I posted for review a year
ago that attempts to make the restart logic more generic:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/23/80
The entires patch series, which doesn't necessarily even apply
On 08/12/12 18:14, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> What we need to guarantee is
>> * restarts do not happen on signals caught in interrupts or exceptions
>> * restarts do not happen on signals caught in sigreturn()
Since we don't currently have
On 08/12/12 18:14, Al Viro wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
What we need to guarantee is
* restarts do not happen on signals caught in interrupts or exceptions
* restarts do not happen on signals caught in sigreturn()
Since we don't currently have an orig
On 06/12/12 22:09, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:17:34AM +, James Hogan wrote:
>
>> Agreed, it looks wrong. Looking at the sh version, is there a particular
>> reason to only check for -EFAULT and not the other errors that
>> do_sigaltstack can return (-EPERM, -EINVAL, and
On 06/12/12 22:09, Al Viro wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:17:34AM +, James Hogan wrote:
Agreed, it looks wrong. Looking at the sh version, is there a particular
reason to only check for -EFAULT and not the other errors that
do_sigaltstack can return (-EPERM, -EINVAL, and -ENOMEM)?
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> What we need to guarantee is
> * restarts do not happen on signals caught in interrupts or exceptions
> * restarts do not happen on signals caught in sigreturn()
> * restart should happen only once, even if we get through
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
What we need to guarantee is
* restarts do not happen on signals caught in interrupts or exceptions
* restarts do not happen on signals caught in sigreturn()
* restart should happen only once, even if we get through do_signal()
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> "Subtle and undocumented" is an extremely polite way to describe that.
> By now we had at least a dozen architectures step on that trap, simply because
> they had different calling conventions and the same logics did *not* "just
>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:09:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
Subtle and undocumented is an extremely polite way to describe that.
By now we had at least a dozen architectures step on that trap, simply because
they had different calling conventions and the same logics did *not* just
work
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:17:34AM +, James Hogan wrote:
> Agreed, it looks wrong. Looking at the sh version, is there a particular
> reason to only check for -EFAULT and not the other errors that
> do_sigaltstack can return (-EPERM, -EINVAL, and -ENOMEM)?
See commit
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:17:34AM +, James Hogan wrote:
Agreed, it looks wrong. Looking at the sh version, is there a particular
reason to only check for -EFAULT and not the other errors that
do_sigaltstack can return (-EPERM, -EINVAL, and -ENOMEM)?
See commit
14 matches
Mail list logo
