[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 9/10] signal: do not use save_static_function() anymore

To: "Atsushi Nemoto" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] signal: do not use save_static_function() anymore
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:39:42 +0100
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AUNyRSTkYnrSmhhea0ByVb06xwXGyVVvGHRBxiW+aKdSKwfBDXJYXbYcYVNQMXsrRIL0U1eB6amK0xKv5wMWQBIFYebHc1gYzKj5o1XJD9QgfVkpC0tZhx3H92XTOXJVFCGILfW2CaJri7AeWi9XGx30dpBcJBHmWnFiIeI+5ik=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
If you did not restore static registers in kernel stack on
restore_sigcontext(), succeeding RESTORE_STATIC in restore_all will
load garbages to static registers.

You're right the patch I sent is not sufficient. However, we actually
could restore save_static_function (well if we do it, I think it's
much better to do it in assembly code...) for sys_sigreturn() _only_.
In that case RESTORE_STATIC should load correct values, shouldn't it ?

But the points are:

        - get rid of saving static registers in setup_sigcontext()
        - get rid of restoring static registers in restore_sigcontext()
        - free space in the signal frame

what do you think ?

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