Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:59:21 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, monstr@monstr.eu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sigaltstack fun
Message-ID: <20121118195921.GH16916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <CAHTX3d+Ou3_4tGqwyWFfNMSumPw2770_nhV_cTQa89k7+sxdHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121118054510.GE16916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFxncW2pEhsjg0AO9YKyvPaHyiXZMjoJZ1J8gA+8sH7HNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121118.140332.1273544560009594278.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121118.140332.1273544560009594278.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1189
Lines: 27

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:03:32PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > I have absolutely no objections. sigaltstack has always been kind of
> > messy, and made worse by the fact that it gets effectively no testing
> > (because it's generally not used by normal code and even code that
> > uses it tends to use it only for very uncommon events). So forcing all
> > the sigaltstack code into generic code and at least avoiding the
> > "different architectures can get things subtly - or not so subtly -
> > wrong in different ways" sounds like a good thing.
> 
> FWIW, if folks are looking for testcases there are a small number in
> glibc, a quick grep shows:
> 
> nptl/tst-cancel20.c
> nptl/tst-cancel21.c
> nptl/tst-signal6.c
> debug/tst-longjmp_chk2.c
> 
> LTP probably has a bunch too.

Might be a good idea to start adding tests/* in the kernel tree, perhaps?
Ones in glibc had been present prior to the LGPLv3 clusterfuck, by the
look of it...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/