Am 07.06.2012 22:59, schrieb Martin Pärtel: > Signal handlers in UML guest processes now get correct siginfo_t fields > for SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGILL and SIGBUS. Specifically, si_addr and si_code > are now correct where previously they were si_addr = NULL and si_code = 128.
What exactly is broken? In my SIGSEGV test case si_addr is not NULL, it contains the correct faulting address. > + > + ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, pid, 0, &si); > + Doesn't this leak the host siginfo_t into the guest? Thanks, //richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
