Re: [PATCH 150/150] kernel/signal.c: use __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORERinstead of SA_RESTORER

[Luis Henriques]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0100, PaX Team wrote:
> sorry if you got this twice, had smtpd problems...
> 
> On 26 Mar 2013 at 15:20, Luis Henriques wrote:
> 
> > 3.5.7.9 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > commit 522cff142d7d2f9230839c9e1f21a4d8bcc22a4a upstream.
> > 
> > __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER is the preferred conditional for use in 3.9 and
> > later kernels, per Kees.
> 
> does __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER exist in the 3.5 stable series at all? i thought it
> was new to 3.9...

You're right, __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER has been added on 3.9 only.
However, due to build failures for some archs (mips, ia64, ...) using
the upstream 2ca39528c01a933f6689cd6505ce65bd6d68a530 commit, Ben
Hutchings has cooked a patch that adds this definition to stable
series.

This patch is currently under review for the 3.5 kernel:

[PATCH 149/150] signal: Define __ARCH_HAS_SA_RESTORER so we know whether to clear sa_restorer

Cheers,
--
Luis
--
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/