Re: sigaltstack fun

[Al Viro]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/