Commit 0f8f3089 authored by Hiroshi Shimamoto's avatar Hiroshi Shimamoto Committed by Ingo Molnar

x86: signal: check sas_ss_size instead of sas_ss_flags()

Impact: fix redundant and incorrect check

Oleg Nesterov noticed wrt commit:

  14fc9fbc: x86: signal: check signal stack overflow properly

>> No need to check SA_ONSTACK if we're already using alternate signal stack.
>
> Yes, but this also mean that we don't need sas_ss_flags() under
> "if (!onsigstack)",

Checking on_sig_stack() in sas_ss_flags() at get_sigframe() is redundant
and not correct on 64 bit. To check sas_ss_size is enough.
Reported-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarHiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>
Cc: roland@redhat.com
LKML-Reference: <49CBB54C.5080201@ct.jp.nec.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent 93394a76
......@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ get_sigframe(struct k_sigaction *ka, struct pt_regs *regs, size_t frame_size,
if (!onsigstack) {
/* This is the X/Open sanctioned signal stack switching. */
if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONSTACK) {
if (sas_ss_flags(sp) == 0)
if (current->sas_ss_size)
sp = current->sas_ss_sp + current->sas_ss_size;
} else {
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment