On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:12:41PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> [2015-10-09 11:33:52 +0100]: > > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 03:59:40PM +0530, Manjeet Pawar wrote: > > > MINSIGSTKSZ and SIGSTKSZ for ARM64 are not correctly set in latest kernel. > > > This patch fixes this issue. > > > > > > This issue is reported in LTP (testcase: sigaltstack02.c). > > > Testcase failed when sigaltstack() called with stack size "MINSIGSTKSZ - 1" > > > Since in Glibc-2.22, MINSIGSTKSZ is set to 5120 but in kernel > > > it is set to 2048 so testcase gets failed. > > > > > > Testcase Output: > > > sigaltstack02 1 TPASS : stgaltstack() fails, Invalid Flag value,errno:22 > > > sigaltstack02 2 TFAIL : sigaltstack() returned 0, expected -1,errno:12 > > > > I'm still unable to reproduce this failure. Is this with defconfig? > > > > > Reported Issue in Glibc Bugzilla: > > > Bugfix in Glibc-2.22: [Bug 16850] > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16850 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Akhilesh Kumar <akhilesh.k@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Manjeet Pawar <manjeet.p@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Rohit Thapliyal <r.thapliyal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > v1 -> Changes in uapi overall header > > > v2 -> Changes done in arm64 headers > > > v3 -> Changes done in both uapi & arm64 headers > > > > > > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/signal.h | 3 +++ > > > include/uapi/asm-generic/signal.h | 2 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> > > > > Arnd: are you planning to take this via asm-generic, or shall I queue it > > on the arm64 fixes branch? > > > > i just noticed this and wanted to note that an old > glibc can fail on a new kernel with this patch if > an application uses MINSIGSTKSZ altstack. I was worried about that (which was also why I didn't Cc stable on this, because we shouldn't pretend that glibc and the kernel are synchronised), but the value *is* incorrect and glibc has already been updated. In other words, not merging this patch is also problematic, because we're advertising a size that's significantly too small. Would you rather we kept the old incorrect value in the kernel headers? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
