linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel/signal.c: avoid BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)

To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel/signal.c: avoid BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 22:56:44 +0100
Cc: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
In-reply-to: <20130529173634.GA2020@redhat.com>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1369846916-13202-1-git-send-email-james.hogan@imgtec.com> <51A638A4.2000705@gmail.com> <20130529173634.GA2020@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On 29 May 2013 18:36, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/29, David Daney wrote:
>>
>> On 05/29/2013 10:01 AM, James Hogan wrote:
>>> MIPS has 128 signals, the highest of which has the number 128. The
>>
>> I wonder if we should change the ABI and reduce the number of signals to
>> 127 instead of this patch.
>
> Same thoughts...

I'll give it a try. I wouldn't have thought it'd break anything, but
you never know. glibc (incorrectly) sets [__]SIGRTMAX to 127 already.
On the other hand uClibc sets it to 128, so anything built against
uClibc that uses signals SIGRTMAX-n (where n may be 0) or uses an
excessive number of rt signals starting from SIGRTMIN (sounds
unlikely) could well need an updated uClibc (or a full rebuild if it's
crazy enough to use __SIGRTMAX).

>>> @@ -2366,8 +2366,12 @@ relock:
>>>
>>>              /*
>>>               * Death signals, no core dump.
>>> +             *
>>> +             * MIPS has a signal number 128 which clashes with the core 
>>> dump
>>> +             * bit. If this was the signal we still want to report a valid
>>> +             * exit code, so round it down to 127.
>>>               */
>>> -            do_group_exit(info->si_signo);
>>> +            do_group_exit(min(info->si_signo, 127));
>
> This avoids BUG_ON() but obviously fools WIFSIGNALED(), doesn't look
> very nice.

Agreed.

Cheers
James

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>