Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > 2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process > >> is killed with SIGKILL

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > 2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process > >> is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

2016-10-20 12:24 GMT+03:00 Thomas Gleixner : > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Dmitry Safonov wrote: >> could you give attached patch a shot? > > Can you please stop sending attached patches? It's a pain to look at them > and it makes it hard to reply inline. Sure, I've planned to resend

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

2016-10-20 12:24 GMT+03:00 Thomas Gleixner : > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Dmitry Safonov wrote: >> could you give attached patch a shot? > > Can you please stop sending attached patches? It's a pain to look at them > and it makes it hard to reply inline. Sure, I've planned to resend it after get

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > could you give attached patch a shot? Can you please stop sending attached patches? It's a pain to look at them and it makes it hard to reply inline. I applied it and rewrote the changelog because the one liner you slapped into it is more than

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > could you give attached patch a shot? Can you please stop sending attached patches? It's a pain to look at them and it makes it hard to reply inline. I applied it and rewrote the changelog because the one liner you slapped into it is more than

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:02:59AM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > 2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process > >> is killed with SIGKILL after

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:02:59AM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > 2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process > >> is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> Hi >> >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process >> is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. > > I should have said they

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> Hi >> >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process >> is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. > > I should have said they are killed with

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> Hi >> >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process >> is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. > > I should have said they

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

2016-10-19 20:33 GMT+03:00 Mikulas Patocka : > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> Hi >> >> In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process >> is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. > > I should have said they are killed with

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > Hi > > In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process > is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. I should have said they are killed with SIGSEGV, not SIGKILL. > I use Debian sid x64-64

Re: x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > Hi > > In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process > is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. I should have said they are killed with SIGSEGV, not SIGKILL. > I use Debian sid x64-64

x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

Hi In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. I use Debian sid x64-64 distribution with x32 architecture added from debian-ports. I bisected the bug and found out that it is caused by the patch

x32 is broken in 4.9-rc1 due to "x86/signal: Add SA_{X32,IA32}_ABI sa_flags"

Hi In the kernel 4.9-rc1, the x32 support is seriously broken, a x32 process is killed with SIGKILL after returning from any signal handler. I use Debian sid x64-64 distribution with x32 architecture added from debian-ports. I bisected the bug and found out that it is caused by the patch