On Wednesday 18 June 2008 11:36:53 Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > Brian Foster wrote: > > Whilst thinking about the problem and possible solutions, > > it occurred to me there could be a defect in the current > > trampoline: Suppose there is a signal, either at point A, > > due to <instr> itself, or at point B, which is caught on > > this stack, and the user-land signal-handler ‘return’s. > > > > Doesn't the signal-handler/sigreturn stack-frame overwrite > > the FP trampoline? [ ... ] > > When I first integrated the FP emulator into the kernel, back in 2.2.x, > I seem to recall that someone found this problem and that I came up with > a tweak to signal stack setup that protected the FP branch delay slot > trampoline. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe the tweak was lost? The error is mine: I overlooked the tweak. Now that you mention it / remind me of it, I distinctly recall it; in fact, that was what first alerted me to the existance of the FP trampoline. sorry & cheers! -blf- -- “How many surrealists does it take to | Brian Foster change a lightbulb? Three. One calms | somewhere in south of France the warthog, and two fill the bathtub | Stop E$$o (ExxonMobil)! with brightly-coloured machine tools.” | http://www.stopesso.com
