[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: James Hogan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel/signal.c: fix BUG_ON with SIG128 (MIPS)
From: Andrew Morton <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:40:15 -0700
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <>, David Daney <>, David Daney <>, <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Al Viro <>, 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: <> <> <> <> <> <>
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:10:08 +0100 James Hogan <> wrote:

> On 22/06/13 20:09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/21, David Daney wrote:
> >> 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.
> I agree that this approach isn't very nice (I was really just trying to
> explore the options) and reducing the number of signals is nicer. But is
> anybody here confident enough that the number of signals changing under
> the feet of existing binaries/libc won't actually break anything real?
> I.e. anything trying to use SIGRTMAX() to get a lower priority signal.

Meanwhile, unprivileged users can make a MIPS kernel go BUG.

How much of a problem is this?  Obviously less of a problem with MIPS
than it would be with some other CPU types, but I'd imagine it's still
awkward in some environments.

If this _is_ considered a problem, can we think of some nasty little
hack which at least makes the effects less damaging, which we can also
put into -stable kernels?

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