Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 May 2002 16:16:13 +0200 | From | Peter Wächtler <> | Subject | Re: missing bit from signal patches |
| |
Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Roman, > > On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:46:20 +0200 (CEST) Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > >>On Thu, 30 May 2002, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >> >>>Is the following a more ugly hack than yours? >>> >>Yes. :) >>The problem is copy_siginfo(), which wants to access struct siginfo. >>Copy the m68k version of siginfo.h and try to compile that. >> > > OK, sorry, brain fart :-) > > It seems that is an architecture defines its own siginfo_t then it must > also define its own copy_siginfo function (for now anyway). > > Try this ... >
Why is that done so complicated? Why not just copy the struct over? When the kernel generates the signal, I hope the mem is zeroed and we copy it to user. When a user sends a signal, you want to prevent sending of arbitrary data? Why is that not done where the permission check happens?
What do I miss?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |