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]