[Top] [All Lists]

Re: unkillable process due to setup_frame() failure

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: unkillable process due to setup_frame() failure
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:11:57 +0100
Cc: Atsushi Nemoto <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/
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.


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