[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)

To: David Daney <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)
From: Oleg Nesterov <>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 21:09:40 +0200
Cc: David Daney <>, James Hogan <>,, Ralf Baechle <>, Al Viro <>, Andrew Morton <>, Kees Cook <>, David Daney <>, "Paul E. McKenney" <>, David Howells <>, Dave Jones <>,
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
> On 06/21/2013 01:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
>>> On 06/21/2013 06:39 AM, James Hogan wrote:
>>>> Therefore add sig_to_exitcode() and exitcode_to_sig() functions which
>>>> map signal numbers > 126 to exit code 126 and puts the remainder (i.e.
>>>> sig - 126) in higher bits. This allows WIFSIGNALED() to return true for
>>>> both SIG127 and SIG128, and allows WTERMSIG to be later updated to read
>>>> the correct signal number for SIG127 and SIG128.
>>> I really hate this approach.
>>> Can we just change the ABI to reduce the number of signals so that all
>>> the standard C library wait related macros don't have to be changed?
>>> Think about it, any user space program using signal numbers 127 and 128
>>> doesn't work correctly as things exist today, so removing those two will
>>> be no great loss.
>> Oh, I agree.
>> Besides, this changes ABI anyway. And if we change it we can do this in
>> a more clean way, afaics. MIPS should simply use 2 bytes in exit_code for
>> signal number.
> Wouldn't that break *all* existing programs that use signals?  Perhaps I
> misunderstand what you are suggesting.

Of course this will break the userspace more than the original patch,
that is why I said "And yes, this means that WIFSIGNALED/etc should
be updated".

> I am proposing that we just reduce the number of usable signals such
> that existing libc status checking macros/functions don't change in any
> way.

And I fully agree! Absolutely, sorry for confusion.

What I tried to say, _if_ we change the ABI instead, lets make this
change sane.

To me this hack is not sane. And btw, the patch doesn't look complete.
Say, wait_task_zombie() should do exitcode_to_sig() for ->si_status.


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