This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Tests for minimal signal handler functionality in MINSIGSTKSZ space.
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:44:00 +1100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tests for minimal signal handler functionality in MINSIGSTKSZ space.
- References: <20190115200526.4677-1-zackw@panix.com> <1d45c6cb-192c-5ade-513e-a40c65d9fb7e@redhat.com> <CAKCAbMhSxEznwJDjSscq_whWk8j8TV409HAgGJ4AGOrHhV=8bw@mail.gmail.com> <dfefe1c3-7952-9878-757d-48a15c880332@redhat.com> <CAKCAbMiaUYOLkRD36MEVJRuzbAyjC7DEYNz68ZuJdWDrq=YPRQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/17/19 1:06 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> It also occurs to me that on some architectures MINSIGSTKSZ is less
> than a page; on those architectures, the rounding done in xsigstack.c
> means we aren't _really_ testing this stuff in MINSIGSTKSZ space.
> Since overflow is much more of a concern than underflow, what do
> people think of adjusting the code in xsigstack.c so that the area
> actually passed to sigaltstack will not be rounded and will be right
> up against the guard in the direction of overflow? This would mean
> xsigstack.c has to know which direction the stack grows, but I think
> we already have internal macros for that, so it's not a huge problem.
> I would do this as a follow-up patch if it's agreed to be a good idea.
Heh. Should have read the whole thread first.
>From my other mail, you can clearly tell that I vote yes for this. ;-)
r~