On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> i386 floating-point exception handling has a bug that can cause error
> code 0 to be sent instead of the proper code during signal delivery.
Looking at your patch, I think it's too complicated.
The fact is, none of the "switch()" cases even _care_ about bits "0x240"
from swd. The bug itself seems to be that we even look at it.
Wouldn't this simpler patch result in exactly the same behaviour?
Linus
---
diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c b/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
@@ -803,15 +803,14 @@ void math_error(void __user *eip)
*/
cwd = get_fpu_cwd(task);
swd = get_fpu_swd(task);
- switch (((~cwd) & swd & 0x3f) | (swd & 0x240)) {
+ switch (swd & ~cwd & 0x3f) {
case 0x000:
default:
break;
case 0x001: /* Invalid Op */
- case 0x041: /* Stack Fault */
- case 0x241: /* Stack Fault | Direction */
+ /* swd & 0x240 == 0x040: Stack Fault */
+ /* swd & 0x240 == 0x240: Stack Fault | Direction */
info.si_code = FPE_FLTINV;
- /* Should we clear the SF or let user space do it ???? */
break;
case 0x002: /* Denormalize */
case 0x010: /* Underflow */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |