I have received a bug report related to the si_code field of siginfo for SIGFPE. The FPE_ values are (unfortunately) an enumeration rather than a bitmask, so we can't just OR them together. Unfortunately when we get multiple unmasked exceptions at least on x86 we leave info.si_code to __SI_FAULT, which means it is returned to userspace as zero. This violates POSIX, which states that an si_code <= 0 is a user-generated signal. Looking at the code in other architectures, it looks like most of them prioritize the faults, but still end up with __SI_FAULT|0 if none of the expected conditions are found (which may not be possible, of course.) Prioritizing the faults seem like the reasonable thing to do in terms of dealing with the multiple unmasked errors problem. I am wondering if it would make sense to notice the combination __SI_FAULT|0 or __SI_FAULT and (short)si_code < 0 and force SI_KERNEL into the user-space code field in the generic code. I am also wondering if there is any possibility that there is code out there which relies on the current, buggy behaviour. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
