Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal(i386): alternative signal stack wraparound occurs

> I am sorry, i don't understand how this is related to the semantics of
> e.g. longjmp.  But, i am sure my patch solves all overflows. Ingo's patch
> can't catch the overflow which is caught by "int i[1000];" in the handler
> function.

Please read the long explanation I wrote, which Ingo forwarded.

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: Fw: Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal(i386): alternative signal stack wraparound occurs
    • From: Shi Weihua <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal(i386): alternative signal stack wraparound occurs
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal(i386): alternative signal stack wraparound occurs
    • From: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal(i386): alternative signal stack wraparound occurs
    • From: Shi Weihua <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] NET: ASSERT_RTNL in __dev_set_promiscuity makes debug warning
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -v2] fix for futex_wait signal stack corruption
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/3] signal(i386): alternative signal stack wraparound occurs
• Next by thread: [PATCH 2/3] signal(ia64): alternative signal stack wraparound occurs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]