Re: unkillable process due to setup_frame() failure

[Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:24:05PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > So my "which is preferred" question was inappropriate.  I had to ask
> > "#1 or #2 or both or other ?"
> 
>  We should be consistent with other platforms -- having a look at e.g. the 
> i386 (as it used to be the reference) and the alpha (as close-enough to 
> MIPS) should reveal the answer.  IIRC, a SIGSEGV that has a handler 
> installed, but which cannot be callled due to a bad stack pointer is 
> forced to SIG_DFL, but you may want to double-check it.

That's what's already happening.  We call force_sigsegv which is like
force_sig unless it's trying to deliver a SIGSEGV in which case it'll
reset the handler to SIG_DFL, return to userspace where it hits the
break instruction and starts all over to process the SIGTRAP.

  Ralf