[Bug libc/22564] Enhance Safety check

[akhilesh.k at samsung dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22564

--- Comment #3 from Akhilesh Kumar <akhilesh.k at samsung dot com> ---
>I am not really understanding the issue you are seeing. The cancellation >handler (sigcancel_handler) is explicit enabled with SA_SIGINFO so kernel >should provide a correct and valid siginfo_t as second argument for signal >handler.  And as least si_signo, si_errno, and si_code should be defined for >all signals.

>Although siginfo_t is implemented in Linux as an union, I see no point in >actually change the order of tests.  Ideally the si_pid should be manipulated >only for certain types of signals, so I think the guard for sig == SIGCANCEL >is correct here.


>I think the changes you are proposing are giving you more information just by ?>change, do you have a testcase that trigger this issue?

I tried but unable to reproduce this issue.  
During crash analysis I observed the above behavior. I am having only the core
dump symbol file for analysis.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.