On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 10:59:11AM +0100, Joey Gouly wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:10:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > Looking a little more at this, I think we have quite a weird behaviour > > on arm64 as it stands. It looks like we rely on the signal frame to hold > > the original POR_EL0 so, if for some reason we fail to allocate space > > for the POR context, I think we'll return back from the signal with > > POR_EL0_INIT. That seems bad? > If we don't allocate space for POR_EL0, I think the program recieves SIGSGEV? ... > So I think it's "fine"? Yeah, there's a bunch of other stuff would go badly if we tried to carry on after failing to allocate a signal frame.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
