On 25/06/13 23:13, James Hogan wrote: > On 25 June 2013 22:40, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Meanwhile, unprivileged users can make a MIPS kernel go BUG. >> >> How much of a problem is this? Obviously less of a problem with MIPS >> than it would be with some other CPU types, but I'd imagine it's still >> awkward in some environments. >> >> If this _is_ considered a problem, can we think of some nasty little >> hack which at least makes the effects less damaging, which we can also >> put into -stable kernels? > > The first rfc patch I sent sort of satisfies that by passing 127 if > sig==128, or slightly better would be passing 126 if sig>=127 (so that > SIFSIGNALED returns true). Effectively #ifdef'ing it on _NSIG>127 as > this patch does may be preferable too. > > That's probably the minimum change necessary to evade the BUG_ON > without removing it. The wait status code will still be wrong, but it > wasn't exactly right before so it's no worse. > > IMO changing the ABI by reducing _NSIG to 127 or 126 isn't appropriate > for stable. How does this look for a nasty/stable fix?
