On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:28:12PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> It looks like just "do_signal()" has a stack frame that is about 230
>> bytes even under normal circumstancs (largely due to "struct ksignal"
>> - which in turn is largely due to the insane 128-byte padding in
>> siginfo_t). Add a few other frames in there, and I guess that if it
>> was close before, the coredump path just makes it go off.
>
> We could, in principle, put it into task_struct and make get_signal()
> return its address - do_signal() is called only in the code that does
> assorted returns to userland...
We have better uses for random buffers in "struct task_struct", I'd
hate to put a siginfo_t there.
The thing is, siginfo_t has that idiotic 128-byte area, but it's all
"for future expansion". I think it's some damn glibc disease - we've
seen these kinds of insane paddings before.
The actual *useful* part of siginfo_t is on the order of 32 bytes. If that.
Sad.
Linus
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
